Value-normative structure of corporate culture.

It has now become traditional to distinguish three levels corporate culture:

1) superficial (symbolic) level- this is everything that a person can see and touch: corporate symbols, logo, company calendars, company flag, company anthem, special architecture of the building, etc. Also at the symbolic level include myths, legends and stories associated with the founding of the company, activities its leaders and outstanding employees. Such legends and stories are usually passed down orally. At this level, things and phenomena are easy to detect, but they cannot always be deciphered and interpreted in terms of corporate culture.

2) subsurface level– unites values ​​and norms that are consciously recorded in the organization’s documents and are intended to be guiding in the daily activities of the organization’s members. A typical example of such a value is the attitude “the customer is always right,” in contrast to the attitude of the primacy of the manufacturer in the Soviet period. In particular, the continued existence of the old value of the primacy of the producer still prevents the effective operation of many organizations and sectors of the economy. At this level, the values ​​and beliefs shared by members of the organization are examined in accordance with the extent to which these values ​​are reflected in symbols and language. The perception of values ​​and beliefs is conscious and depends on the desires of people. Researchers often limit themselves to this level because the next level poses almost insurmountable difficulties.

3) basic (deep) level– basic assumptions that arise among members of an organization on the basis of personal patterns, reinforced or changed by the successful experience of joint actions and in most cases unconscious, some “air” of corporate culture, which is odorless and tasteless, which everyone breathes, but in the normal state they do not notice. These basic assumptions are difficult for even members of the organization to grasp without specifically focusing on the issue. These implicit and taken-for-granted assumptions guide people's behavior by helping them perceive the attributes that characterize the corporate culture.

Some researchers propose a more detailed structure of corporate culture, highlighting its following components:

Worldview- ideas about the surrounding world, the nature of man and society, guiding the behavior of members of the organization and determining the nature of their relationships with other employees, clients, competitors, etc. Worldview is closely related to the characteristics of the socialization of the individual, his ethnic culture and religious beliefs. Significant differences in the worldviews of workers seriously complicate their cooperation. In this case, there is scope for significant intra-organizational contradictions and conflicts. At the same time, it is very important to understand that it is very difficult to radically change people’s worldviews, and significant efforts are required to achieve some mutual understanding and acceptance of the positions of people with different worldviews. An individual's worldview is difficult to express in clear verbal formulations, and not everyone is able to explain the basic principles underlying his behavior. And to understand someone’s worldview, it sometimes takes a lot of effort and time to help a person explicate the basic coordinates of his vision of the world.

Corporate values, i.e. objects and phenomena of organizational life that are essential and significant for the spiritual life of workers. Values ​​act as a link between the culture of the organization and the spiritual world of the individual, between corporate and individual existence. Personal values ​​are reflected in consciousness in the form of value orientations, which also include wide circle social values, recognized by the individual, but not always accepted by him as his own goals and principles. Therefore, it is possible both an incomplete, inadequate reflection of personal values ​​in consciousness, and an orientation in terms of consciousness towards values ​​that are not real motives of behavior. Values ​​can be maintained even if the organization has undergone significant personnel changes. At the same time, a certain change in values ​​can be carried out, which will affect the behavior of members of the organization. Corporate values ​​are closely related to organizational mythology, expressed in a system of stories, myths and even anecdotes that contain some respectable characteristic of any member of the organization that distinguishes him from many others.

Behavior styles, characterizing employees of a particular organization. This also includes specific rituals and ceremonies, the language used in communication, as well as symbols that have special meaning specifically for members of a given organization. An important element can be any character with characteristics in highest degree valuable to the culture and serving as a role model of behavior for employees. Employee behavior is successfully corrected by various trainings and control measures, but only if new patterns of behavior do not conflict with the above-described components of corporate culture.

Norms— a set of formal and informal requirements imposed by an organization in relation to its employees. They can be universal and particular, imperative and indicative, and are aimed at maintaining and developing the structure and functions of the organization. Norms include the so-called rules of the game, which a newcomer must master in the process of becoming a member of the organization.

Psychological climate in an organization that a person encounters when interacting with its employees. Psychological climate is the prevailing and relatively stable spiritual atmosphere that determines the relationships of team members to each other and to work.

None of these components individually can be identified with the culture of an organization. However, taken together they can provide a fairly comprehensive picture of a company's culture. Many components of culture are difficult for an outsider to detect. You can spend several weeks in an organization and still not understand the fundamental principles of culture that govern people's actions. Each employee, coming to the organization, goes through a certain procedure of organizational socialization, during which month after month he comprehends all the smallest nuances that together form the corporate culture.

There are many approaches to analyzing the content of a particular corporate culture. F. Harris and R. Moran proposed to identify ten substantive characteristics inherent in any corporate culture:

1. Awareness of oneself and one’s place in the organization (in some cultures, restraint and concealment of the employee’s internal moods and problems are valued, in others openness, emotional support and external manifestation of one’s experiences are encouraged; in some cases, creativity is manifested through cooperation, and in others - through individualism);

2. Communication system and language of communication (the use of oral, written, non-verbal communication, “telephone rights” and openness of communication varies from organization to organization; professional jargon, abbreviations, sign language are specific to organizations of various industry, functional and territorial affiliations of organizations);

3. Appearance, clothing and self-presentation at work (variety of uniforms, business styles, standards for the use of cosmetics, perfumes, deodorants, etc.), indicating the existence of many microcultures;

4. Habits and traditions associated with the intake and assortment of food: how food is organized for employees in the organization, including the presence or absence of canteens and buffets; participation of the organization in paying food costs; frequency and duration of meals; jointly or separate meals employees with different organizational status, etc.;

5. Awareness of time, attitude towards it and its use: perception of time as the most important resource or a waste of time, compliance with or constant violation of the time parameters of organizational activities;

6. Relationships between people: the influence on interpersonal relationships of such characteristics as age, gender, nationality, status, amount of power, education, experience, knowledge. Compliance with formal etiquette or protocol requirements; degree of formalization of relations, support received, accepted forms conflict resolution;

7. Values ​​and norms are the first set of ideas about what is good and what is bad; the second is a set of assumptions and expectations regarding certain type behavior;

8. Worldview: faith or lack of faith in justice, success, one’s own strengths, leadership; attitude towards mutual assistance, ethical or misbehavior, conviction in the punishability of evil and the triumph of good, etc.;

9. Development and self-realization of the employee: thoughtless or conscious performance of work; reliance on intellect or strength; free or limited circulation of information in the organization; recognition or rejection of the rationality of people's consciousness and behavior; creative environment or rigid routine; recognition of man's limitations or emphasis on his potential for growth;

10. Work ethic and motivation: treating work as a value or duty; responsibility or indifference to the results of one’s work; attitude towards your workplace. Qualitative characteristics of work activity (quality of working life); good and bad habits at work; a fair relationship between the employee's contribution and his remuneration; planning an employee’s professional career in an organization.

These characteristics of an organization's culture collectively reflect and give meaning to the concept of corporate culture. The content of corporate culture is determined not by the simple sum of expectations and the actual state of affairs for each characteristic, but by how they are interconnected and how they form the profiles of certain cultures. Distinctive feature of a particular culture is the priority of the basic characteristics that form it, indicating which principles should prevail in the event of a conflict between its different components. In this context, there is no need to talk about corporate culture as a homogeneous phenomenon. Any organization potentially contains many subcultures. In fact, any of these subcultures can become dominant, that is, the corporate culture itself, if it is purposefully supported and used by organizational authorities as a tool for consolidating individual goals in the direction of a common organizational goal.

There may also be a type of subculture in an organization that quite persistently rejects what the organization as a whole wants to achieve. Among these corporate countercultures, the following types can be distinguished:

• direct opposition to the values ​​of the dominant corporate culture;
• opposition to the power structure within dominant culture organizations;
• opposition to the patterns of relationships and interactions promoted by the dominant culture.

Countercultures usually appear in organizations when individuals or groups find themselves in conditions that they feel cannot provide them with the usual or desired satisfaction of needs. In a sense, corporate countercultures are expressions of dissatisfaction with the way organizational power allocates organizational resources. This situation occurs especially often during periods of organizational crises or reorganization. Under these conditions, some “countercultural” groups can become quite influential or even dominant.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of corporate culture

enterprises………………………………………….………………………... 5

1.1. The essence of corporate culture…………………………………... 5

1.2. Structure of corporate culture……………………...…………… 9

1.3. Formation of corporate culture………………………..…….14

Chapter 2. Formation of corporate culture using the example of Artemy Lebedev’s studio ……………………………………………………………..19

2.1. Characteristics of Artemy Lebedev’s studio……………………………19

2.2. Studio Corporate Code

(“Basic Law”)………………………………………………………... 21

2.3. Work motivation in the studio of Artemy Lebedev …………….…… 24

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…….. 29

References…………………………………………………….….....31

INTRODUCTION

The topic of this work is undoubtedly relevant, since in the conditions of transition to a post-industrial society, when information, knowledge and high technology become the dominant production resource, human resources are acquired strategically important. In any modern enterprise there is a need, a need to unite people, both those who have the means of production and those who have the ability to work and consume, into a single whole - a single social organism. The information contained in the work can clarify the essence and provide the foundations of corporate culture, which, in turn, will be useful to the manager to ensure effective performance and create a favorable climate in the company. The purpose of the work is to identify the essence of corporate culture and systematize the requirements and criteria for its formation. In connection with the goal, such tasks as identifying the main elements of corporate culture, determining its purpose and functions, as well as proving its significance and importance for the staff were solved. The object of study of this work is the corporate culture of the organization, and the subject is the process of formation of corporate culture.

Corporate culture is the nourishing environment of the entire business. Its role in the new knowledge-driven economy is rapidly increasing. All modern companies are aware of this and invest significant resources in its formation and development, since these investments fully pay off. At the heart of any successful business lies a healthy, values-based corporate culture. It determines people's attitudes toward work, the style and effectiveness of teamwork, people's job satisfaction, team relationships, relationships with clients and partners, and, ultimately, the success or failure of the company. Corporate culture is a powerful tool in improving the management of a modern organization.

Chapter 1. Corporate culture of the enterprise

1.1.The essence of corporate culture

The essential feature of a modern corporation is partnership at the level of interaction of the interests of two parties - managers and managed: the corporation should enrich those associated with it, and those working in it should receive satisfaction from their work.

This is the fundamental difference between a modern corporation and a traditional one, which is the name of a joint-stock company as a product of an industrial type of management. It is a separate social group, bound by narrow economic interests and the goals of its activities, guiding behavior in the workplace and determining relations with the environment. A comparison of the meaning and content of two types of corporations indicates that the process of transformation of domestic organizations involves a preliminary change in organizational culture towards corporate culture.

“A traditional corporation is a form of association of producers in the conditions of industrialism, stimulating the growth of labor productivity on the basis of rational - normative theories and universal methods regulation of labor behavior." She happens to be joint stock company, in which workers are deprived of the opportunity to independently own and use the means of production. Its activities are aimed at reducing production costs and increasing profits in the interests of shareholders. The essence of a traditional corporation is planning, organizing and controlling. The traditional corporation is based on the philosophy of contract.

The philosophy of the contract is that a group of shareholders, through managers, enters into an agreement with a group of workers that the latter undertake to provide a certain amount of labor in exchange for a certain payment. The traditional corporation acts as the only source of livelihood for workers based on the alienation of the means of production from them, the strict opposition of “working” and “free” time, and the priority of economic motivation for activity. The worker’s production activity itself is considered as unfree, and his self-realization is identified with activity that is outside the labor process and associated with non-working time and the consumption of goods.

“A modern corporation is a relatively isolated social community that unites entrepreneurs and employees with specific interests and requires creativity and independence from all elements in the workplace.”

Changes in methods of action and forms of organization are associated with the following innovations:

Increasing the creative potential of employees and their social mobility in ensuring market success;

Changes in the labor process itself, in which the priority is its improvement, the dissemination of new technologies that provide the system with “flexible specialization”, focused on quickly responding to changing market needs;

The emergence of a new type of organization (management) of activity - a team: a form of interaction between creative individuals, providing motivational orientations and ethical values ​​that underlie the unity of the team;

Strengthening the company’s dependence on its employees, mutual interest, overcoming class exploitation and allowing staff to gain increasing freedom of self-realization within the labor process.

These and other innovations indicate that modern corporations can no longer be managed on the basis of the principles inherent in the economic development of industrial systems. Corporate culture ensures the formation of creative corporations with a flexible internal organization, trade - production processes, regulation of production volumes, employment, etc.

Modern corporations are based on a new corporate philosophy – the values ​​of “common destiny”. It emphasizes that the interests of workers and consumers are as important as the interests of shareholders. Cooperation, partnership, a system of trust and coordinated actions are becoming no less important than the economic management system: people in modern corporations are interconnected. Modern corporations have a policy of participation that creates an atmosphere of: concern for the social needs of employees and opportunities for them to realize their life intentions; involvement in planning processes and management decision-making. At the same time, the managed (subordinates) should not have the feeling that their position and role in the corporation will undergo an undesirable change because of their statements. There is a coincidence of the values ​​of the corporation and the staff within the labor process: productive activity becomes an important source of personal development and is associated with maximizing the qualitative improvement of the organization as a whole.

The new corporate philosophy of “common destiny” is based on the moral and ethical values ​​of solidarity, self-control and a culture of quality. The emphasis is shifted from production processes to motivation, incentives and communication of workers: those organizations achieve success whose philosophy is obvious to both their staff and the public (consumers). Therefore, the corporate philosophy should take place:

Mission statement – ​​a brief description of the goals, strategies, and values ​​that are a priority for the corporation;

Definition of social responsibility - the significance of the corporation’s activities in the social aspect;

Priority of work principles over income;

Policy for retaining personnel and unlocking their professional potential;

The priority of the principle of truth, knowledge and full awareness in relations with the public of the corporation.

Based on corporate philosophy, in the process of joint work, corporate relations are formed between employees (staff), which are characterized by the unity of values, norms, rules, rituals of behavior and communication. The philosophy of "common destiny" becomes vital when it permeates the corporation from top to bottom and is shared by employees at all levels. Then it has advantages in efficiency, quality and competitiveness, since the employees of the organization where the philosophy is adopted:

They understand the problems of the corporation.

They feel like they belong to it.

They are confident that their personal interests are inextricably linked with the success of the company and other individuals.

Ready to take on broader responsibilities to help overcome obstacles.

Respond quickly to opportunities.

“Corporate culture is the acquired, internalized and embodied quality of positive corporate behavior and communication of corporation employees on the basis of collective shared professional interests, values, norms of traditions under the control of management bodies and the public itself.” In terms of content, it includes public participation, partnership, comfortable working conditions, personnel policy for employee retention, opportunities for their growth and development of professional potential, personnel code, etc.

Structure of corporate culture

Corporate culture is a high-quality implementation of positive corporatism based on a system of values ​​and beliefs shared by the corporation’s community, which determine its behavior, the nature of its activities, maximizing corporate spirit and management, taking into account social and ethical responsibility. It provides:

Formation of moral and ethical values ​​and guidelines for the life of the corporation, encouraging the potential of intellectual and spiritual energy of human resources for the effective implementation of its mission.

Strengthening connections between employees and company management, a sense of community at all levels of employees around values, norms, traditions and increasing their responsibility for the quality of their activities.

Organization of work and management of human resources in such a way that the activities of the corporation ensure high mobility, enrichment, and social protection of those who work in it.

Creation corporate identity aimed at developing a culture of quality, corporate prosperity, stimulating employee satisfaction and increasing social contribution to society.

Gaining favorable attitudes from the public outside the corporation.

“The structure of organizational culture has two dimensions: horizontal and vertical.”

The horizontal dimension is characterized by a variety of cultural forms.

The vertical dimension is specified by the category “level of culture”.

In the horizontal dimension of organizational culture, four forms of organizational culture are distinguished:

Economic

Socio-psychological

Legal

Political

Two forms of culture are of greatest interest: economic and socio-psychological.

The economic culture of an organization is the result of its economic behavior, which is determined by the mechanism of economic thinking.

Economic culture includes:

Production culture – culture of labor organization, working conditions, means of labor, etc.;

distribution culture;

Consumption culture;

Sharing culture.

Social and psychological culture is determined by the mechanism of thinking of employees.

Socio-psychological culture includes many components, the most obvious of which are:

Leadership culture;

Ethical and aesthetic culture;

Culture of behavior (motivation);

Communication culture;

Conflict resolution culture.

In turn, each of the elements can be divided into other, more fractional ones.

Elements of corporate culture:

Corporation Mission Statement

Team spirit

Management and leadership style

Business communication etiquette

Motivation and stimulation of employees

Form style

Social partnership

Quality culture

The following factors influence corporate culture: corporate philosophy, national culture (mentality), culture of effective business, professional culture, competitive environment, government laws and ideology, fashion.

Each organization has its own culture depending on the specifics of the work, but its purpose is the same: to unite the workforce around common values ​​- norms and achieve the corporate mission based on positive corporatism.

There are a large number of typologies and systematizations of organizational cultures:

Typology of R. Ruttinger. It is based on the developments of T. Deal and A. Kennedy, who proposed linking the organizational culture of the company according to the specific type of activity. The factors on the basis of which R. Ruettinger divides the culture of an enterprise are the degree of risk and the speed of feedback from the external environment and the market.

Typology of cultures based on their inherent gender relationships. “British specialists S. Medok and D. Parkin conducted certain studies that showed that men tend not to recognize the existence of discrimination against women and do not pay attention to the existence of many remnants in gender relations at work. At the same time, women complain about mistreatment and use special strategies to combat those who prevent them from working effectively.”

A classification developed depending on what the culture is primarily oriented towards.

Typology of cultures depending on interethnic characteristics and differences of the Dutch researcher Geert Hofsteid. His methodology examines the types of cultures depending on four characteristics: “individualism - collectivism”, “power distance”, the tendency to avoid uncertainty, “masculinization - feminization”.

Typology by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn. This typology covers the key characteristics of cultures, allows us to obtain their qualitative and quantitative assessments and diagnose changes in the company’s culture. The typology is based on a competing values ​​framework.

We would like to consider in more detail the classification of Mike Bourquet (France), based on the characteristics of the organization’s interaction with the external environment, its size, structure, and staff motivation. He identified eight main types:

The "greenhouse" culture is characteristic of state-owned enterprises that are not interested in changes in the external environment. The staff is poorly motivated, which is due to the structure of the enterprise, bureaucracy, conformism and anonymity of relationships. This system is aimed at maintaining what has been achieved.

- “spikelet gatherers” are enterprises, mostly small and medium-sized, whose strategy depends on chance. Their structures are anarchic, their functions are dispersed. The basis of the value system is respect for the leader. As a rule, these enterprises are in a difficult situation and, as a result, cannot motivate staff.

The vegetable garden culture is a typical model for French enterprises. They have a pyramidal structure. Such enterprises strive to maintain a dominant position in the traditional market, using models tested in the past with a minimum of changes. Staff motivation is low.

The “French garden” culture is a slightly modified version of the “vegetable garden” culture under the influence of American experience. Common in large enterprises. For example, the well-known company IBM, which has a bureaucratic structure, where people are treated as cogs necessary for the functioning of the system.

The culture of “large plantations” is typical for large enterprises with 3–4 hierarchical levels. Their distinctive feature is constant adaptation to changes in the environment, so the flexibility of the staff is strongly encouraged. His level of motivation is quite high.

The “liana” culture is a reduced management staff to a minimum, the widespread use of computer science, the orientation of each employee to market requirements, a high sense of responsibility at all levels, which ensures a high degree of staff motivation.

The “school of fish” model is an enterprise characterized by high maneuverability and flexibility, constantly changing its structure and behavior depending on changes in market conditions. Special requirements for the intellectual flexibility of personnel.

The culture of the “nomadic orchid” is inherent in various advertising agencies and consulting firms, which, having exhausted the possibilities of one market, move on to another. They have an informal, constantly changing structure and a limited number of employees. Their goal is to offer a one-of-a-kind product. The level of staff motivation is relatively low.

Formation of corporate culture

Typically, an organization grows by attracting new members who come from organizations with a different culture. New members of the organization, whether they like it or not, bring into it the “virus” of another culture. In some organizations, the shared beliefs and values ​​of a culture are clearly ranked. Their relative importance and the connection between them does not diminish the role of each of them. In other organizations, the relative priorities and connections between shared values ​​are less clear. When exploring methods for maintaining and strengthening organizational culture, in essence, one should talk about what the philosophy and practice of management should be and what management should pay attention to in order to maintain the desired organizational culture that will support the developed development strategy of the company. A number of methods can be distinguished here:

Leader behavior. The manager must become an example, a role model, showing an example of such an attitude to business, such behavior, which is expected to be consolidated and developed in subordinates.

Statements, appeals, declarations of leadership. To reinforce desirable work values ​​and patterns of behavior, it is of great importance to appeal not only to reason, but also to emotions: “The best specialists work in our organization!”

Objects and subjects of attention, evaluation, control by the manager. This is one of the most powerful methods of maintaining culture in an organization because, through repeated actions, the manager lets employees know what is important and what is expected of them.

Management response to critical situations and organizational crises. In critical situations, managers and their subordinates discover organizational culture to a degree they never imagined. The attitude towards people and their mistakes cultivated in the organization is especially pronounced in critical situations.

Role modeling, teaching and training. Training is the most important tool for promoting and consolidating the desired attitude towards a business, towards an organization and explaining what behavior the organization expects, what behavior will be encouraged, reinforced, welcomed.

Criteria for determining remuneration and status. Incentive system. Benefits are usually tied to specific behavior patterns and thus prioritize employees and indicate values ​​that are important to individual managers and the organization as a whole. The distribution of privileges indicates the roles and behaviors that are more valued by the organization.

Criteria for hiring, promotion and dismissal. What the organization and its leadership come from when regulating the entire personnel process becomes quickly known to its members by the movement of employees within the organization.

Maintaining organizational culture in the process of implementing basic management functions. Organizational culture is significantly influenced by what personnel behavior is supported and what is suppressed by current management practices.

Organizational symbols and rituals. Organizational culture is consolidated and transmitted in the traditions and orders operating in the organization. Rituals include standard and repeated team activities held at set times and on special occasions to influence employees' behavior and understanding of the organizational environment. Rituals are a system of rituals. Compliance with rituals, rites, and ceremonies strengthens the self-determination of workers.

Organizational culture exists in any organization and is formed either spontaneously or in a special way. Spontaneously, organizational culture is always formed as a reaction to problematic situations, which allows you to adapt to changed conditions and achieve your goals. Lack of attention on the part of management to the process of forming and maintaining culture ultimately causes an exacerbation of the most important organizational contradiction - the discrepancy between individual and corporate goals.

The first problem is external adaptation: what should be done by the organization and how it should be done.

The second problem is internal integration: how employees solve their daily work-related problems.

However, competent management of the formation and development of culture should not be aimed at completely destroying the naturalness of its development; it should only limit as much as possible the spontaneity of such development, which is fraught with unpredictable consequences, and identify and promote its generally valid guidelines. “Excessive attention to organizational culture turns the organization into a kind of philanthropic institution, concerned only with the problems of achieving social comfort.”

The process of external adaptation and survival is associated with the organization’s search and finding of its niche in the market and its adaptation to the constantly changing external environment. This is the process of achieving goals by an organization and interacting with representatives of the external environment. This process involves issues related to the tasks being performed, methods for solving them, reactions to successes and failures, etc.

The process of internal integration is concerned with establishing and maintaining effective work relationships among organizational members. It is the process of finding ways to work together and coexist within an organization. The process of internal integration often begins with the establishment of specifics in defining oneself, which applies both to individual groups and to the entire team of the organization.

To build an organizational culture that supports the organizational development strategy, management must take a number of steps.

Development of the organization's mission, definition of strategy, main goals and values ​​(priorities, principles, approaches, norms and desired patterns of behavior).

Study of the existing organizational culture. Determining the degree of compliance of the existing organizational culture with the organization’s development strategy developed by management. Identifying positive and negative values.

Development of organizational activities aimed at the formation, development or consolidation of desired values ​​and patterns of behavior.

Targeted influence on organizational culture in order to eliminate negative values.

Assessing the success of influencing organizational culture and making the necessary adjustments.

Already at the second stage of the formation of an organization’s culture, difficulties arise in studying organizational culture:

Weak theoretical development problems of organizational culture;

Instability over time of the very subject of research – organizational culture;

Limited possibilities for cross-cultural transfer of identified patterns of functioning of organizational culture;

Blurred boundaries of the phenomenon of organizational culture, its interweaving into the structure of the organization;

Limited possibilities for publishing research results due to the confidential nature of the information.

Studying the existing culture is a prerequisite for successfully changing it. Carrying out subsequent stages of forming an organizational culture when the noted negative effects arise or intensify is impractical.

Having found out the desired (ideal) state of organizational culture and determined its current (actual) state, you can decide on those actions that will allow you to move from the current state to the desired one.

The result of studying the cultural environment that has developed in an organization should be the solution of three problems:

Clearly understand (formulate) the leading values, priorities, and attitudes designed to support a promising organizational strategy;

Clarify which cultural values ​​will help (or hinder) the implementation of the organization’s strategic goals;

Assessment of the existing gap, i.e. the degree of compliance with the existing culture and the organization’s development strategy developed by management.

Chapter 2. Formation of corporate culture using the example of Artemy Lebedev’s studio

2.1. Characteristics of Artemy Lebedev's studio

Artemy Lebedev Studio is the largest professional design company in Russia, founded by Artemy Lebedev in 1995. She is engaged in both industrial and graphic design, and is famous for her work in the field of web design. The company's motto: “Design will save the world.”

Today, Artemy Lebedev’s studio employs more than 170 employees. Of these, five are art directors:

Artemy Lebedev;

Roma Voronezhsky;

Ilya Mikhailov;

Ludwig Bystronovsky;

Oleg Paschenko.

Most famous projects: Optimus Keyboard

“Optimus” is a series of keyboards in which the key surfaces are OLED displays, which can display different keyboard layouts or various icons specific to each application.

At the moment, only the Optimus mini three keyboard has been released.

The “Optimus mini three” keyboard is a three-button device created using the same technology that is planned to be used to produce the “Optimus – 103” keyboard.

Leading designers: Timur Burbaev, Anton Gerasimenko, Vasily Dubovoy, Egor Zhgun, Andrey Zubrilov, Evgeny Kazantsev, Anton Schneider.

The main directions are industrial design, graphic design, website creation and interface design.

The company's job is to find the most convenient, simple and beautiful way to solve a given problem without losing its meaning.

The company fundamentally does not work with individuals, political and religious organizations, as well as with those whose beliefs contradict corporate ones.

The main office of the studio is located in Moscow, the other is in Kyiv.

“We exist the way we like. We work the way we think is right. We are allergic to the phrases “creative solution” and “optimization of business processes.” We rarely write proposals longer than one page to clients. It is difficult to definitively answer the question of why some people trust us to solve their problems. It is not at all necessary that we reach an agreement with someone who wants to work with us. But we will definitely work the way we think is right” - this is how the main ideas of the organization sound.

The studio provides its clients with only the highest quality services. This is largely possible thanks to suppliers - companies that provide daily life and communications.

Hosting: GoldenTelecom, Rinet, MTU-inform;

Leased lines to the Internet: Cable & Wireless, Caravan, GoldenTelecom;

Computers: Deep Apple, Market24;

Telephony: Caravan, MGTS, Comstar;

Cellular communications: BeeLine, MTS;

Mobile phones: Nokia;

Banking services: Vneshtorgbank;

Furniture: IKEA, “Cabinet”;

Postal services: Pony Express, IPS, Courier Service 2000;

Flights: Bilet.ru, East Line;

Office: RPI;

Storage media: Ergodata;

Plumbing, repair: Alterplast

As can be seen from the list and from the positioning of the studio as a business unit and as a corporate structure, the corporate culture of this company can be classified as strong, with a strong team and focus on the personalities of managers and key top managers.

2.2. Studio Corporate Code (“Basic Law”):

1. Lebedev Studio is the Center of the Universe with its own flag, anthem and logo. The studio's internal policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development for employees.

2. The sovereignty of Lebedev’s studio extends to its entire territory, including the dining room and the rug in front of the entrance.

3. Lebedev Studio is a secular enterprise. No religion can be established as official or compulsory. “It is forbidden to mock the fasting Solovyov.”

4. Any activity aimed at violently violating the integrity of Lebedev’s studio, undermining its security, creating armed groups, or inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred is prohibited.

5. The studio guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of employees regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, operating system used, hair length, opinions about Zemfira’s latest album, various piercings parts of the body, as well as other circumstances.

6. In Lebedev's studio, men, women, cats and managers have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their implementation.

7. None of the Lebedev Studio employees should be subjected to torture, violence, defragmentation, archiving, hanging by the rib, or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one may be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.

8. “Employees of Lebedev’s studio have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold meetings, parties, sessions, drinking bouts, brainstorming sessions, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing.”

9. Collection, storage, use and distribution of information about the private life of an employee of the Lebedev Studio without his consent is not permitted. For its part, Lebedev Studio counts on the loyalty of its employees and urges you not to collect, store, use or distribute information about the private life of the studio outside its boundaries. If an employee is not satisfied with something, he can tell everything to management, and they will try to help.

10. Each employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to a personal computer connected to the worldwide international global computer network “Internet”. The computer also comes with a chair, a desk lamp and a box of paper clips.

11. Every employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to food. The right to food includes the right to free daily lunches, the right to free coffee, the right to boiling water from the kettle, the right to cutlery, the right to a refrigerator and the right to refills.

12. Every employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to sleep in Lebedev’s studio - there is a specialized sofa for this purpose. None of the Lebedev studio employees can be smeared with toothpaste while sleeping.

13. Each Lebedev Studio employee has the right to a 12-, 14- and 16-hour working day.

14. Each employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to a six-day working week.

15. Every employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to stay and work overnight.

16. Every employee of Lebedev’s studio has the right to high wages, paid in full and on time. Each employee has the right to indicate the size of his wages to third parties, but this can only be done once, since after this Lebedev’s studio automatically has one less employee.

17. Each employee of the Lebedev Studio has the right to take direct part in raising the Lebedev Studio cat.

18. Each employee has the right to arrange their workspace in accordance with their professional, religious and taste preferences. If you need a Zip, an ergonomic keyboard, green floppy disks, a dot matrix printer, a poster of Leonardo DiCaprio, an anti-radiation cactus, and the like, you should make a corresponding request. All necessary equipment is purchased at the expense of Lebedev’s studio.

19. Studio employees respect the property of the company and the property of their colleagues. Confiscation for undivided personal use of other people's ashtrays, coffee, tobacco products, teaspoons, stud farms, state-owned and private pedigree cattle breeding and poultry farming, and other things is not allowed. If you need to borrow a CD or a toothpick, go to the owner and make a verbal request. They rarely refuse.

20. Studio employees, regardless of physiological age, professional experience and other distinctive features, walk around the office like brothers and sisters and treat each other with respect, but without pathos. Short hair, piercings, bandanas, T-shirts with provocative slogans, slippers with pom-poms, long hair and so on.

21. An employee of Lebedev’s studio – this sounds proud. An employee of Lebedev’s studio is an example to all the guys. The studio has the right to demand professionalism from every employee always, everywhere and in everything.

This Code expresses the views of the founder of the studio - as a creative team and a successful business unit, and also attracts employees and partners, according to the principle “like attracts like”, and at the same time solves the difficult issue for any management of compatibility, socio-psychological attitudes and professional requirements.

Despite the rather shocking form of presenting information, nevertheless, the psychological calculation here is completely justified. The studio is famous for its democratic traditions, but at the same time for its strict requirements for professionalism and careful and attentive attitude towards its employees.

From the moment of hiring, each studio employee feels a sense of belonging to the organization, experiences a spirit of cohesion and shares corporate values, since they are clearly defined, acceptable and discussed from the first moment a candidate meets a vacancy at the studio.

2.3. Work motivation in Artemy Lebedev's studio

One of the main tasks for any enterprise is searching effective ways labor management, ensuring the activation of the human factor. The decisive causal factor in people's performance is their motivation.

“Collective motivation is an internal motivation for the activity of a group and team, caused by their common needs, drives and determining the direction of this activity and activity.”

In order to prevent negative phenomena, the studio has built a model of motivational characteristics of work, which fully uses all the tools of the company’s corporate culture.

Diversity of skills and abilities. This term describes the extent to which a job requires a variety of activities to perform it and involves the use of different skills and talents of personnel. If a worker feels that someone else can do the job just as well, then the job is unlikely to be of value to him and he is unlikely to feel a sense of pride in completing the task. A job that does not use a worker's valuable skills does not generate the need for further training. There is also an optimal level of variety. It is individual for each employee. Thus, the same work may be considered boring by some, while for others it seems that it has an unstable and intermittent nature, and therefore it is impossible to establish any specific mode of its implementation.

Integrity of work. This parameter refers to the completion of a work operation as a whole and specific part of the work, i.e. performing work from start to finish with visible results. Closely related to this concept is the certainty of the task on the part of the manager.

The importance of work. This parameter refers to the degree of influence of the work performed on the life or work of other people in the organization or in the external environment. Workers tightening nuts on airplane brakes view their work as very important, unlike workers filling paper boxes with paper clips. At the same time, the skill level is approximately the same. The concept of importance is closely related to the performer’s value system. Work can be interesting and exciting, but people will remain dissatisfied until they feel that their work is important and needs to be done.

Autonomy. Autonomy describes the extent to which a job provides the employee with freedom and independence in determining the work schedule and actions used to achieve desired result. If decisions are made by other people, doing a good job is less likely to be seen as a reward. The person will feel that the quality of the work depends on the correctness of these decisions, and not on his own efforts. There will be no sense of “ownership” of the work. In the absence of integrity, autonomy is also impossible, because There may be a violation of the overall coordination of individual actions. The amount of autonomy varies from person to person. For any employee there is an optimal level of autonomy, which gives him a real sense of personal responsibility and does not lead to stress.

Feedback. Feedback ensures that employees receive information about the quality of their work. The effectiveness of feedback depends on the integrity of the work. It is much easier to provide feedback on the results of “finished work” than on a separate fragment of it. By expanding the scope of each job so that the employee is responsible for several interrelated activities, we increase autonomy. At the same time, it increases the integrity of the work, which means fast and effective feedback. At the same time, the employee intensively uses self-testing, i.e. personal feedback. He has the opportunity to discover shortcomings himself, which is perceived much easier than if someone else pointed out this mistake to him. The importance of feedback is obvious. People need to know how well they are doing their job. Managers are an important source of such feedback. However, the best Feedback occurs when employees themselves control the quality of their own work.

The factors discussed above contribute to the evaluation of a job in terms of its complexity, value and necessity. If a job does not have these parameters, it will not be intrinsically motivated. Good quality of its implementation will not create a feeling of accomplishment, nor a feeling of novelty or acquisition of something useful.

Work that satisfies all the described factors internally motivates workers, ensures good quality of the completed task, brings satisfaction, and helps to increase productivity. It creates a sense of personal contribution to the products or services provided and gives employees a sense of ownership. Only such work allows a person to express himself.

Managers must constantly think about possible ways to improve the performance and motivation of the people working with them. It is important to highlight possible simple work changes that could lead to stimulating the internal motivation of subordinates, causing cooperation and enthusiasm on their part.

In 2006, compared to 2005, average monthly output increased by 163.75% due to a decrease in the total number of employees, an increase in the share of specialists at the enterprise due to the restructuring of production (to improve the activities of structural divisions), unification of the technological process, which made it possible to reduce production time within projects and reduce their cost.

Accordingly, the volume of products sold increased by 155.82%, despite the increase in production costs associated with the increase in the cost of advertising and materials. All this allows us to conclude: in 2006, the activities of Artemy Lebedev’s studio were more effective and profitable compared to previous years due to the adaptation, stabilization and motivational effectiveness of personnel as part of the implementation of corporate culture.

In addition, in 2005, due to an increase in the number of employees, the rate of wage growth exceeded the rate of production, which negatively affected the studio’s ability to form funds allocated for further development.

It should also be noted that in the period from 2004 to 2005. There was a sharp disproportion in the distribution of the age composition of workers. There is a very small number of young specialists - 15%, the share of which in modern organizations should be at least 20%, in order to ensure a sustainable personnel reserve. However, by the final year, these indicators improved due to the stabilization of personnel, advanced training and the implementation of motivation programs within the corporate culture of the studio.

CONCLUSION

Corporate culture represents a large area of ​​phenomena in the material and spiritual life of a team: the prevailing moral norms and values, the accepted code of conduct and established rituals, traditions that have been formed since the formation of the organization and are shared by the majority of its employees. Corporate culture is the embodiment of a company employee’s attitude towards key values, beliefs and traditions. Culture materializes in corporate stories, ceremonies, celebrations of success, and customs.

It is unlikely that anyone will argue with the fact that a united team striving for a common goal is capable of solving the tasks assigned to it with much more enthusiasm and, as a result, efficiency than a disparate team of workers. An effective corporate culture is the most effective way relieve the manager. A manager has a lot of problems related to the production process, and often there is not enough time to develop a corporate spirit, but no manager can solve these problems alone, without the help of a team committed to the goals of the organization. To control events, it is no longer enough to control people’s behavior; it is necessary to control what people think and feel, to shape public opinion and mood. When working with personnel, there is a need to create a unified system of values, norms and rules, i.e. a corporate culture that allows employees to achieve effective work, focus on achieving company goals, and self-realization.

As for Artemy Lebedev’s studio, the corporate culture of this organization can be attributed to the culture of a “nomadic orchid”, if we rely on Mike Burke’s classification. Although, it is impossible to agree that the motivation of the staff in the studio is relatively low, since the studio has a model of motivational characteristics that is aimed at increasing the efficiency and interest of the staff. The use of corporate culture tools had a positive effect on the productivity of studio employees. The corporate culture of Artemy Lebedev’s studio can be considered as strong and promising, because it has already proven its effectiveness and is a developed and proven tool that is recommended for replication in socio-cultural organizations.

Lebedev Studio is one of the largest design studios in Russia, it has the largest portfolio and is not at all worried that in the next few years someone will take their place. The studio contains all the components of corporate culture, and besides, a certain freedom of staff in self-expression, as can be seen from the studio code, does not affect the quality of work. All of the above factors make it impossible for us to give Artemy Lebedev’s studio any recommendations, since it has been successfully operating in this form for almost 15 years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vikhansky, O.S. Management: person, strategy, organization, process / O. S. Vikhansky. – M.: “Gardarika”, 2004.

Groshev, I. V. Organizational culture: a textbook for university students / I. V. Groshev, P. V. Emelyanov, V. M. Yuryev. – M.: UNITY – DANA, 2004.

Johnson, D. Corporate strategy. Theory and practice / D. Johnson, K. Scholes, R. Whittington. – M.: Williams, 2007.

Zaitseva, N. A. Management in social and cultural service and tourism / N. A. Zaitseva. – M.: ACADEMIA, 2005.

Cameron, K. S. Diagnosis and change of organizational culture / Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.

Kapitonov, E. A. Corporate culture / E. A. Kapitonov, A. E. Kapitonov. – Rostov-n/D.: OJSC Rostizdat, 2001.

Tourism management: economics of tourism / ed. V. A. Kvartalnova, I. V. Zorina. – M.: “Finance and Statistics”, 2002.

Milner, B. Z. Knowledge management in corporations / B. Z. Milner, Z. P. Rumyantseva, V. G. Smirnova, A. V. Blinnikova. – M.: Delo, 2006.

Solomanidina, T. O. Organizational culture of the company: tutorial/ T. O. Solomanidin. – M.: LLC “Journal “Personnel Management”, 2003.

Spivak, V. A. Corporate culture / V. A. Spivak. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.

Spivak, V. A. Organizational culture / V. A. Spivak. – St. Petersburg: ed. house "Neva", 2004.

Fedtsov, V. G. Entrepreneurship: the service sector / V. G. Fedtsov, V. V. Fedtsov. – M.: Publishing and trading corporation “Dashkov and K 0”, 2002.

Official website of Artemy Lebedev's studio. – Access mode: www.artlebedev.ru

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

The concept of corporate culture, its place and role in a modern organization, types and features. The influence of corporate culture on the efficiency of an organization. Formation of corporate culture in the Design Studio.

course work, added 05/13/2009


Definition and essence of the organization’s corporate culture. Corporate culture and its content in the modern Russian economy. Methods and analysis of maintaining corporate culture: through celebrations, through training.

course work, added 12/06/2007


Essence, structure, characteristics and main elements of corporate culture. Methods of forming and maintaining corporate culture in an organization. Experience in forming and maintaining the corporate culture of OJSC Joint-Stock Financial Corporation "Sistema".

course work, added 09/27/2010


The main ways to form, develop and maintain corporate culture. Basic attributes of corporate culture. Analysis and diagnostics of corporate culture at the Federal State Unitary Enterprise NMZ "Iskra". Development of an action plan to create a corporate culture.

thesis, added 01/01/2014


Elements of the structure of corporate culture, its role and place in the formation of the organization’s image. Methodology for forming corporate culture, its main types. Using corporate culture as a management tool at Bashkiria Airlines OJSC.

thesis, added 08/01/2012


The trend of increasing importance of corporate culture and its role in the management of organizations. Analysis of models, types, structure and elements of corporate culture. Using corporate culture to improve corporate performance.

thesis, added 10/20/2011


General concepts and essence of corporate culture. The influence of corporate culture on external and internal organizational life. Features of the formation of corporate culture. Corporate mythology, values, mottos, slogans, symbols, rituals.

Analyzing the structure of organizational culture, researchers identify its following components:

1. Employees' worldview- ideas about the surrounding world, the nature of man and society, guiding the behavior of members of the organization and determining the nature of their relationships with other employees, clients, competitors, etc. Worldview is closely related to the characteristics of the socialization of individuals, their ethnic culture and religious beliefs.

Significant differences in the worldview of workers seriously complicate their cooperation. In this case, there is ground for intra-organizational contradictions and conflicts. At the same time, it is very important to understand that it is very difficult to radically change people’s worldviews and significant efforts are required to achieve some mutual understanding and respectful acceptance of each other’s positions. An individual's worldview is difficult to express in clear verbal formulations, and not everyone is able to explain the basic principles underlying his behavior. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort and time to help a person clarify the basic coordinates of his vision of the world.

2. Organizational values that is, objects and phenomena of organizational life that are essential and significant for employees. Values ​​act as a link between the culture of the organization and the inner world of the individual, between organizational and individual existence. Personal values ​​are reflected in consciousness in the form of value orientations, which also include a wide range of social values ​​recognized by the individual, but not always accepted by him as his own goals and principles. Therefore, it is possible both an incomplete, inadequate reflection of personal values ​​in consciousness, and an orientation in terms of consciousness towards values ​​that are not real motives of behavior. Values ​​can be maintained even if the organization has undergone significant personnel changes. At the same time, a certain change in values ​​can be carried out, which will affect the behavior of members of the organization. Organizational values ​​are closely related to organizational folklore: with a system of oral stories, legends and anecdotes, which sometimes contain some respectable organizational situation, idea, example or characteristic of a member of the organization, which distinguishes him favorably from many others.





3. Behavior styles characterizing employees of a particular organization. This includes specific rituals and ceremonies, the language used in communication, and symbols, which carry a special meaning specifically for members of this organization. An important element may be a character who has characteristics that are highly valuable to a given culture and serves as a role model of behavior for employees. Employee behavior is successfully corrected by various trainings and control measures, but only if new patterns of behavior do not conflict with the above-described components of organizational culture.

4. Norms– a set of formal and informal requirements imposed by an organization in relation to its employees. They can be universal and particular, imperative and indicative, and are aimed at preserving and developing the structure and functions of the organization. Norms also include the so-called “rules of the game,” which a newcomer must master in the process of becoming a member of the organization.

5. Psychological climate in an organization that a person encounters when interacting with its employees. Psychological climate is the prevailing and relatively stable psychological atmosphere that determines the relationships of team members to each other and to work.

None of these components individually can be identified with the culture of an organization. However, taken together they can provide a fairly comprehensive picture of organizational culture.

Many components of culture are difficult for an outsider to detect. You can spend several weeks in an organization and still not understand the fundamental principles of culture that govern people's actions. Each employee, coming to the organization, goes through a certain procedure of organizational socialization, during which month after month he comprehends all the smallest nuances that together form the organizational culture.

A well-known specialist in organizational psychology, E. Schein (1983), proposes to distinguish three levels of corporate culture: surface, internal and deep (Figure 5.1).

Surface level includes such external organizational characteristics as products or services provided by the organization, technology used, architecture production premises and offices, the observed behavior of workers, formal language communication, slogans, etc. At this level, things and phenomena are easy to detect, but they cannot always be deciphered and interpreted in terms of corporate culture. A characteristic feature of this level of culture is that, despite the obviousness, it is extremely difficult to interpret from the point of view of internal content. The main problem is always the ambiguity of the form. It is possible to understand the meaning of any such phenomenon only by simultaneously studying the culture at deeper levels.

Rice. 5.1. Structure of corporate culture (according to E. Schein)

On internal level declared values ​​expressed in symbols and language are studied. Values, expressing the positive or negative significance for an individual of various phenomena or objects of the material and spiritual world, act as the internal basis of a person’s relationship to himself, others and the world as a whole.

Value orientations, being the most important elements of the internal structure of a person, are fixed by the life experience of the individual and delimit what is significant, essential for a given person, from the insignificant, insignificant. The totality of established, established value orientations forms a kind of system of personal coordinates that ensures the stability and continuity of a certain type of behavior and activity, expressed in the direction of a person’s needs and interests in public life. Due to this value orientations act as the most important factor regulating and determining human behavior.

Values ​​are not always realized by the individual without losing their regulatory influence. The person himself may not think at all that he is implementing a value-based attitude towards reality, but this does not weaken the effective power of the value-based attitude (Leontyev, 1996).

If the proclaimed values ​​correspond to internal value coordinates, then their verbal expression in the form of operating principles contributes to the consolidation of the organization, being a means of self-identification and mission formulation. In extreme cases, these frames of reference work against organizational goals and reduce the effectiveness of collective action. Here we move to deep level culture, to the level of basic ideas. At this level, we can view an organization as a system of consciously coordinated collective action in which its participants are engaged in continuous, interactive and creative process generating the meaning of existence in general and the meaning of the main activity in particular. Internalized value assumptions are often difficult for even organizational members to understand without special focus on this issue. They do not raise objections or doubts among employees, and therefore changing them is extremely difficult. In order to bring something new into this area, it is necessary to change some of the most stable elements of the internal personality structure of the organization's members.

The culture of any organization, according to E. Shein, can be studied at three specified levels: the level of external culture, the level of values ​​and the level of basic ideas. However, if the researcher is unable to decipher the structure and content of basic ideas, he will not be able to correctly interpret the external manifestations of culture, nor give an adequate assessment of the values ​​​​accepted in the organization. In other words, the essence of an organization's culture can only be established at the level of basic ideas that underlie its activities.

It should be noted that the levels of analysis identified by E. Shein in one form or another are also taken into account by other researchers of corporate culture (Prigozhin, 2003; Spivak, 2001; Harris, Moran, 1991). In the approach we propose, these levels are considered as equal components (blocks) of the corporate culture system.

Values, as we know, are not inherent in a child from birth, and the process of their formation is a process of internalization by a person of social, declared values ​​(Dontsov, 1975). In fact, the indicated levels are the mutually transferable forms of existence of values ​​that we have already considered: 1) organizational or social ideals expressed in declared values; 2) external, objective embodiment of these ideals in the behavior and communication of employees, external organizational characteristics, in the goods and services offered by the organization, in the technologies used, etc.; 3) basic ideas or value-motivational structures of the individual, encouraging him to substantively embody organizational values ​​in his behavior and activities. In other words, all three blocks are not levels, but interacting components of a single system, the work of which can be simplified as a series of continuous mutual transitions: the declared values ​​are assimilated by the individual and begin as “models of what should be” to encourage him to activity, during which the objective embodiment of these models occurs : objectively embodied values, in turn, become the basis for the formation of organizational ideals, etc. (Dontsov, 1975; Leontiev D. A., 1996).



Rice. 5.2. Three-component system of corporate culture

Thus, we can imagine corporate culture not as a three-level, but as a three-component system that is in continuous development (Figure 5.2).

It is important to note that there is one more general property modern studies of the structure of corporate culture: they are invariably dominated by the idea of ​​culture as a phenomenon that permeates the organization from top to bottom and unites it into a kind of socio-psychological formation with a pronounced level of homogeneity. This homogeneity and unity are emphasized or taken for granted even when considering completely different corporate cultures or subcultures within the same organization. If we are talking about subcultures that in one form or another reject the goals and values ​​declared by the organization, then, as a rule, such situations are considered as certain deviations from the model of normal functioning of the organization, which mainly arise during periods of reorganizations or organizational crises.

Based on the previously justified contradictory nature of the organization and returning to the basic organizational contradiction between the overall purpose of the organization and the individual goals of employees, we question the stated homogeneity of organizational culture, which, in our opinion, represents an ideal rather than a reality. This idealization not only obscures the internal essential contradictions of culture that ensure its development, but also removes corporate culture from the historical context, making it a timeless phenomenon.

Built on the principles of F. Taylor, A. Fayol, G. Ford, A. Sloan and others (Bennis, Nanus, 1995; Zankowski, 2009; Fayol, 1924), the modern organization has existed for almost a hundred years, and research on corporate culture in organizational psychology began only in the last quarter of a century. It would be a mistake to assume that culture appeared only with the beginning of appropriate psychological research.

In addition, the rejection of the principle of historicism, as is known, does not allow us to reveal all the diversity of connections of any phenomenon and restore the internal logic of its development.

Following the principle of historicism inevitably raises many important questions: What was corporate culture like at the beginning of the 20th century? How has it developed up to our time? What are its development trends in the future? We believe that the two-level concept of culture allows us to answer these questions.

We propose to distinguish two things in the culture of any organization: basic level, which inevitably divide it into two parts: the culture of management (management) and the performing culture of employees (Figure 5.3).

These levels are not “subcultures,” since these are two completely separate cultures, each of which has its own specifics in external manifestations, in declared values, and in the internal foundations of behavior. These types of cultures have their own specific goals, objectives, resources, rights and responsibilities. Justifying the justification for distinguishing the two indicated levels by the objective principles of building a modern organization (targetfulness, centralization of power, hierarchical structure, division of labor, etc.), we are far from seeing in such a division a reflection of the well-known postulates of Marxist ideology about class stratification society and the inevitability (or even intensification) of class struggle.



Rice. 5.3. Two-level corporate culture model

Another basis for distinguishing these levels is the real (and not ideal!) situation in organizations today. Take, for example, the famous organizational conflict, which occurred in the early 70s in Lordstown (Ohio, USA) at the General Motors automobile plant and is a classic example (“case studies”) of modern organizational psychology. There, at some point, unexpectedly for the management, defective cars began to roll off the plant’s assembly line in a continuous stream. The most surprising thing was the unusual nature of the defect: broken windshields and mirrors, carburetors clogged with factory debris, ignition keys broken in the locks, etc. Moreover, we often came across cars on which the work and procedures required during the assembly process were not completed at all! In a short time, up to 2,000 new cars that required repairs had accumulated in the plant’s workshops! And all this happened at the most modern and expensive plant at that time, where the workers had quite acceptable working conditions and were paid very good salaries and bonuses for those years.

If we take today, it is enough to recall the traditional spring protests of German trade unions on the eve of the signing of tariff agreements or the recent strikes of European airline employees, which indicate the enduring external and internal conflicts between two corporate cultures.

In the history of psychology, in particular, in the history of industrial psychology, although we were not talking about corporate culture, the identification of these levels when conducting research was considered quite natural. Indicative in this regard is the title of the book “Management and the Worker,” which summarized the results of the famous Hawthorne experiments and gave impetus to the humanization of intraorganizational relations (Roethlisberger, Dickson, 1939).

And yet, why are we not talking about independent cultures, but about the basic levels of the same corporate culture?

The identified cultures are interconnected parts of one organizational system, while the management culture as a control subsystem is capable of exerting certain control influences on the subsystem that is in a subordinate position. And, as will be shown below, The general trend The development of corporate culture, expressed in the convergence and even unification of the three components considered, is regulated, that is, it requires constant targeted efforts of management.

Thus, the corporate culture of any organization has two basic levels: 1) management culture, which ensures the management of the organization and is represented by managers at different levels of management, and 2) performance culture, associated with the direct performance of the main function of the organization and represented by ordinary employees. Each level has its own content and structure, expressed by the external attributes of culture, declared values ​​and deep-seated beliefs. Moreover, the greater the differences between the indicated levels for each of the components of corporate culture, the lower the organizational effectiveness.

To test our hypotheses, 3 research methods were developed:

1. To diagnose management culture and performance culture at the level of external manifestations, the “Questionnaire for diagnosing external attributes of culture” was created. For this purpose, 9 components of external culture were identified: 1) Clothing style, 2) Style and demeanor, 3) Appearance and interior, 4) Technology, 5) Products of activity, 6) Communication style, 7) Emotional atmosphere, 8) Rituals and ceremonies, 9) Organizational processes. For each component, 1–2 statements were formulated to assess the severity of each of them on a five-point scale, from complete agreement to categorical disagreement. After the pilot study, the final version of the questionnaire included 11 statements. The questionnaire has a fairly high reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.747; Split-half Guttman coefficient = 0.7651.

2. To diagnose management culture and performance culture at the level of declared values, a “Questionnaire for the internal level of corporate culture” was developed, which included 36 statements reflecting the system of basic corporate values, the mission of the organization and the leading principles of organizational management and leadership. These statements were formulated on the basis of the corporate codes and missions of the 6 companies participating in the study. At the same time, 12 basic provisions acted as subscales of the questionnaire. These were the following subscales: 1) Motivation; 2) Demanding; 3) Entrepreneurial spirit; 4) Independence and meaningfulness of work; 5) Effective decision making; 6) Willingness to change; 7) The desire to inspire and support employees; 8) Close attention to results; 9) Trust; 10) Focus on success; 11) Intolerance for irresponsibility and laxity; 12) Team spirit.

The names of these subscales and their operational definitions were formulated after careful discussion with company managers, and therefore had a form that was understandable to them. Statements in the questionnaire were rated on a five-point scale ranging from complete agreement to strong disagreement. After conducting a pilot study in which 15 managers and 32 employees took part, only those items that had positive intercorrelations within subscales and sufficiently high variance were retained in the questionnaire, which initially had 60 statements. After processing the results of the pilot study, 36 statements remained. Each subscale was represented by 3 items. The overall reliability of the questionnaire was α = 0.83; Subscale reliabilities ranged from 0.8 to 0.9.

3. To study the deep level of management culture and performance culture, in the study of which scientists face serious difficulties, a cognitive approach was used. This approach, based on personality construct theory, views externally observable organizational performance as a function of the construct systems that organizational members use to interpret, predict, and regulate their behavior.

The research procedure was as follows. During the interviews, managers were asked to name concepts that denote the most important factors that determine their lives and activities. As a result, the following organizational elements were selected: 1. “Globalization”, 2. “Market”, 3. “My work”, 4. “My boss” (manager), 5. “I”, 6. “My work group” (department, section), 7. “Motherland”, 8. “My friends”, 9. “My company” (organization), 10. “My family”. After this, employees were asked to name any construct (dimension, characteristic, concept, etc.) that, from their point of view, is similar to a group of elements or unites them. As expected, constructs with value connotations were named most often. From among them, 15 values ​​were selected, named with the greatest frequency. They turned out to be the following: 1. Success. 2. Freedom. 3. Trust. 4. Happiness. 5. Stability. 6. Respect. 7. Support. 8. Justice. 9. Love. 10. Wealth. 11. Power. 12. Cooperation. 13. Consent. 14. Beauty. 15. Equality.

In order to use these values ​​as constructs of the “repertory grid”, each of them was given the form of an adjective and, based on additional discussion with managers, an antonym was selected, that is, a concept that has opposite meaning. Thus, the following 15 pairs were obtained, which were used as scales for assessing organizational elements:

1. Successful - unlucky; 2. Free – not free. 3. Honest - dishonest. 4. Happy - unhappy. 5. Stable – unstable. 6. Respectful - disrespectful. 7. Supportive - interfering. 8. Fair - unfair. 9. Loving – hating. 10. Rich - poor. 11. Strong - weak. 12. Collaborator – competitor. 13. Benevolent - hostile. 14. Beautiful - ugly. 15. Democratic – dominant.

The managers participating in the study were given the task of assessing each of 10 organizational elements using 15 scales formed by value constructs. Thus, it became possible to quantify the extent to which a particular element possesses the characteristics indicated by a particular construct. Analysis of the data obtained allowed us to obtain quantitative, qualitative and spatial characteristics representations of individual and group coordinate systems. For this purpose, we used the statistical software package SPSS 10.5. This package made it possible to calculate correlations between all pairs of scale scores (lines) and intercorrelations between items and constructs, conduct factor analysis, construct a principal component space, placing constructs in this space in accordance with factor loadings, etc.

The study involved 462 employees of the organization, including 153 managers and 309 subordinates. The respondents were representatives of 6 companies located in Moscow and the Moscow region (3 companies) and Central Russia. The representation of each company in the total sample was about 25 managers and 50 employees. To obtain more sincere responses, the survey was conducted anonymously, so Additional Information There is no information about the respondents. All companies are diversified, primarily focused on trade and services.

The results obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using the statistical software package SPSS 17.00. In addition to the above assessment of the reliability of the scales, descriptive statistics procedures, correlation analysis were performed, significance coefficients for differences in mean values ​​were calculated, and factor analysis was performed on the correlation matrix using the principal component method with Varimax rotation.

An analysis of managers’ and employees’ assessments of various aspects of the external attributes of corporate culture showed their high consistency with each other (MD=0.024; t= 0,234; p= 0,819; r= 0,776, p= 0.005), which made it possible to talk about the merging in this aspect of the components of both levels of corporate culture.

Nevertheless, both for individual organizations and for individual parameters of external culture, the scatter was quite large, demonstrating that the unity of corporate culture, even in external manifestations, has significant variations and requires the attention of management.

Analysis of managers' and their subordinates' assessments of the declared values ​​of corporate culture demonstrated statistically significant differences between the means of the two samples (MD=0.348; t= 3,680; p= 0,003).

Generalized results for samples of managers and subordinates, clearly demonstrating the differences between these samples on the vast majority of scales, are graphically presented in Figures 5.4 and 5.5.



Rice. 5.4. Graph of generalized results of diagnostics of external attributes at two levels of corporate culture



Rice. 5.5. Graph of summary results for 13 subscales for samples of managers and subordinates

The maximum differences were typical for the scales: 4 “Independence and meaningfulness of work”, 7 “Striving to inspire and support employees” and 9 “Trust”. The minimal differences were for the scales: 1 “Motivation”, 5 “Effective decision making” and 13 “Declared values”.

The greatest surprise was caused by the fact that among the subscales with the closest mean values ​​was the value scale. However, the correlation analysis showed that the correlation in this block is close to zero ( r= 0,008; p= 0.923). Moreover, 5 subscales: 2, 5, 6, 11 and 12 had a negative correlation with each other. Only scale 10 “Orientation for success” had a high positive correlation among managers and employees ( r= 0,272; p= 0.001), and scales 7 “Striving to inspire and support employees” and 8 “Close attention to results” showed a tendency towards a significant positive correlation ( p~ 0,05).



Rice. 5.6. Fan plot of summary results for 12 subscales for samples of managers and subordinates

The fan plot (Figure 5.6) of the generalized results for 12 subscales for samples of managers and subordinates clearly demonstrates that, in general, management’s assessment of various aspects of corporate culture is much more complacent and closer to the declared standards than that of subordinates.

Factor analysis, as is known, not only allows you to compress the array of data obtained, but also build evidence of the influence of the selected factors on a completely new basis. We conducted factor analysis on the correlation matrix using the principal components method with Varimax rotation separately for samples of managers and subordinates, and obtained completely different factor structures, the analysis of which, in our opinion, is of great interest.

For the sample of managers, a three-factor structure was obtained, which is presented in Table 5.1. These factors describe 34.6% of the total variance.

A meaningful analysis of the maximum loadings on the dominant factors led to the conclusion that the main coordinates of the factor space turned out to be two dimensions traditionally identified in leadership studies. These are Factor I “People Orientation” and Factor II “Result Orientation”. The maximum contribution to factor I was made by the following questionnaire items, directly related to the relational function of management, and to factor II, questionnaire items related to the implementation by management of its main functions and, above all, to the control function.

Table 5.1

Three-factor structure derived from a sample of managers



A completely different factor model was identified for a sample of employees of the studied organizations. Here, too, a three-factor structure was obtained, which is presented in Table 5.2. These factors describe 52.3% of the total variance.

A meaningful analysis of the maximum loads on the dominant factors allowed us to conclude that the main coordinates of the factor space here were factor I “Values” and factor II, which we conventionally called the “Organizational Alienation” factor. The maximum contribution to factor I “Values” was made by questionnaire items directly related to the categories of justice, honesty, and integrity. The maximum contribution to factor II “Organizational alienation” was made by questionnaire items related to excessive bureaucratization, formalism, resistance to change and the inability to solve existing problems.

Table 5.2

Three-factor structure obtained for a sample of subordinates



Analysis of correlation matrices of constructs (values) and organizational elements obtained from samples of managers and employees is of significant interest for the psychological analysis of level differences in the component of deep culture, since it allows us to identify internal connections between mental reflections of organizational phenomena and value judgments.

There are significant differences between groups in the degree of interconnectedness of elements, and differences are manifested not only in the intensity of relationships between elements, but also in the profile of dominant relationships.

A correlation analysis of the magnitude of the differences between the levels of corporate culture and the effectiveness of companies, determined by annual sales volume divided by the average number of employees of the company, showed that there is a moderate positive correlation, which, however, is far from statistical significance ( r= 0,371; p= 0.468). Apparently, the sample of 6 companies is too small to draw a conclusion about general patterns interactions between the identified levels of corporate culture, and additional research in this direction will be required.

Within the framework of the developed two-level concept of corporate culture, we identify 5 types of corporate culture, which at the same time act as stages of its formation and approach to the ideal (Figure 5.7). At Stage I, all components of corporate culture are separated, in fact, within the framework of a formal organizational structure two independent cultures coexist, separated from each other by a cultural “gap” in all components. At Stage II, unification occurs at the level of external attributes of culture, while external uniformity, as a rule, only masks intra-organizational cultural confrontation. At the third stage, in addition to the synthesis of external manifestations of culture, convergence occurs at the level of declared goals and values. If management invests a significant portion of its time and resources into optimizing organizational communication and interaction, then the company’s corporate culture can reach the next 4th stage of development, in which there is not only a partial and often one-sided understanding of common goals and stated values, but also their acceptance cognitive level.



Rice. 5.7. Stages of corporate culture development

And finally, at the fifth stage, a convergence of basic deep values ​​and beliefs is formed. Apparently, this is the highest level of corporate culture that an organization can achieve today. A complete coincidence of basic beliefs probably cannot be achieved completely due to the above principles of building a modern organization, as well as the hyper-individualization of the consciousness of modern man.

Thus, we assume that the two-level model of culture was inherent in the organization at the beginning of the twentieth century and will continue to exist in the modern organization. At the same time, the dynamics of interaction between levels, that is, the rapprochement, merging, or, conversely, divergence of cultural components, will be quite high, and without continuous, purposeful work of management, it tends to slide to a lower level. Most organizations, in our opinion, are currently at the third level of corporate culture development.

Empirical proof of the proposed model will require a whole series of studies, which we have already begun to implement.

To conduct research, diagnostic methods were developed, which made it possible to conduct a study that confirmed the proposed two-level concept of corporate culture. The results showed that for most components of culture there were statistically significant differences between management and subordinates. Using factor analysis, we were able to identify basic dimensions characteristic of these levels. These levels have clearly defined substantive and structural differences, which can vary from minor differences to the presence of two completely independent cultures within one organization. The hypothesis about the existence of a relationship between the “gap” within the levels of corporate culture and the effectiveness of the organization received only partial confirmation, since a moderate positive correlation was identified, which, however, did not have statistical significance.

The results obtained allow us to take a more realistic look at corporate culture and evaluate efforts to bring these levels closer together as a powerful reserve for increasing organizational efficiency.

The culture of an organization cannot be understood as some kind of monolithic block. Within every sufficiently large organization there are groups (formal and informal) that are carriers of their local "subcultures". Thus, the administration and divisions, as a rule, have different subcultures, which can coexist both peacefully and hostilely “under the roof” general culture companies. In this case, subcultures repeat the structure of the enterprise itself.

One or more subcultures can either exist in the same dimension as the dominant culture in the organization, or create a “second dimension” within it. In the first case, this will be a kind of “advanced detachment”, in which adherence to the core values ​​of the dominant culture is stronger than in other parts of the organization. Usually this is the subculture of the central management apparatus (which, in fact, sets the dominant culture). In the second case, the key values ​​of the dominant culture in the organization are accepted by group members along with a set of other values ​​that do not conflict with the dominant ones. This can be observed on the periphery of the organization or in territorial government bodies. This is how adaptation occurs to the specifics of activity (functional services) or local conditions (territorial offices).

In organizations, there may be a third type of subculture - one that persistently rejects what the organization as a whole (the organization's leadership) wants to achieve. Among these organizational “countercultures” the following types can be distinguished: 1:

• a) direct opposition to the values ​​of the dominant organizational culture;
• b) opposition to the power structure within the dominant culture of the organization;
• c) opposition to the patterns of relationships and interactions supported by organizational culture.

In the process of their development and interaction, subcultures “line up” in relation to each other in a certain way: they become isolated, begin to establish connections, are crowded out, and line up in a certain hierarchy.

One of the leading experts in the field of organizational psychology, American psychologist Edgar Schein, based on the concept of cultural scientists F.R. Kluckhohn and F.L. Strodbeck, identifies different levels of organizational culture.

It is based, according to E. Schein, on some basic ideas about the nature of the surrounding world, reality, time, space, human nature, human activity, human relationships. These implicit and taken-for-granted assumptions guide people's behavior by helping them perceive the attributes that characterize the organizational culture. They are in the sphere of the subconscious and, accordingly, are not sufficiently realized even by their carriers - members of the organization. They are revealed only in the process of special analysis and, basically, are only hypothetical in nature.

The second level represents the values ​​and beliefs shared by members of the organization, according to the extent to which these values ​​are reflected in symbols and language. The perception of values ​​and beliefs is conscious and depends on the desires of people. They are aware of to a greater extent than basic ideas and are often directly formulated in the organization’s program documents, being the main guidelines in its activities. As a rule, they are formed by its management and brought to the attention of all employees. Given values, which may be explicit or implicit, in turn determine the social norms that govern the behavior of organizational members. Declared values ​​do not always correspond to the true values ​​of the organization.

The third level is the external manifestations of organizational culture. These include the technology and architecture used, the use of space and time, the specific observable actions of people (rituals, ceremonies, etc.), the layout and decoration of the organization's premises. It is like a visible part of organizational culture. However, the meaning of these external manifestations remains unclear if the basic ideas that stand behind these external manifestations are unknown. At this level, things and phenomena are easy to detect, but they cannot always be deciphered and interpreted in terms of organizational culture 1.

Corporate culture of territorial management

The transformation of the social orientations of Russian residents is a direct result of the ongoing reforms. At the same time, there is a steady decline in traditional values. Life goals such as “live carefree”, “live one day at a time”, “get rich”, “live according to at will", which reflects the implementation in public consciousness ideas of individualism, consumerism and so on. Intensive planting of capitalist values carried out through the formation of appropriate stereotypes, visually primitive propaganda of the Western image and lifestyle, as well as influencing consciousness at a higher level. Wherein life principles Based on the ideas of community and artelism, traditional Russian corporate principles in agricultural and industrial production are gradually being eroded. Today Russian society strives to answer the questions “Where are we going?” and “Where should I go?” We can answer them only after we analyze our past. As you know, the future grows both from the experience of the past and as a result of the implementation of decisions that are made at the present time. Russia is now in a transitional stage, which is characterized by a certain instability, when very diverse currents and relationships coexist at the same time. Society has not yet abandoned the old principles, and new ones are formed and assimilated in extremely contradictory ways.

The ideas of corporatism, on which Russian society was largely based in the past, are undermined, unpopular, but alive because they have objective reasons for this. The scope of their action, in our opinion, will gradually begin to expand. Objective socio-economic processes will contribute to the active use of corporatism ideas in Russian society, since they are organically inherent in it. Modern changes in economy, the emergence of various organizational and legal forms of management, the expansion of powers of regions and municipalities mark a qualitatively new stage in Russian civilization. The concept of “corporate culture” is gradually entering our vocabulary. Culture can be defined as a measure of the level of knowledge of humanity nature, society, the person himself and the ability to wisely use knowledge of the laws of their development. Corporate culture is a system of shared beliefs and ideas about existing values. If ideas about them answer the question of what is important for a person (society and state), then beliefs help to understand how the “person - society - state” system should function, how to self-organize and manage so that society as a whole and every member of society.

In almost every society there is complex rules of conduct, norms, principles, proposals and people's judgments about themselves and each other. Any culture develops specific, often unwritten norms, mutual expectations that govern community behavior. Corporate culture, like any other, is the basis of learned behavior that a community passes on to new generations.

The modern era for Russia is one of the critical moments when she painfully searches for new ways of her development. Social thought intensively cognizes social laws and patterns. In many cases, this “newness” has deep historical roots. roots. Thus, we are now seeing a revival of the corporate method of management, taking into account the possibilities of the natural development of society, its economy and culture. IN economy Western countries and America, the emergence and subsequent evolution of structures corporate governance were a constant reaction to market developments. In Russia, where the economy was “command”, self-regulating market should be created on the basis of comprehensively substantiated principles. This again brings home the critical importance of strengthening systems corporate governance within market economy(or self-regulating market). Under these conditions, the population, united on a contractual basis into a community for the protection of socio-economic interests each person represents corporation. Indigenous transformation, preceding a change in the nature of the development of civilization, are determined mainly by a radical change in the prevailing ideas. Truly historical revolutions that lead to the renewal of the basic foundations of civilizations, or major historical events, are only visible consequences of invisible changes in the thoughts, concepts and beliefs of society.

Thus, for successful development What is important for Russia is a rich social, political and cultural environment in which ideas about the prospects for economic and other processes are formed.

Corporate development management municipality(MO) can be arranged different ways. Specific forms organizations are the result of historical processes that reflect economic and cultural factors specific to each region. Over time, the process of institutionalization of these factors leads to the formation of rules of economic interactions and registration standards practical activities. Corporatism is:

• *regulated by society market based on contractual relations;
• *corporate property based on the principle of equal and joint ownership, use and disposal;
• *democratic structure of power.

The corporate culture of a community is reflected in a system of norms that are understood, approved and shaped by all its members. These basic values at the same time they represent a program for what the community wants to achieve. Different values characterize different cultures. Any culture is, in turn, a decisive tool motivation behavior (working for yourself or working for someone else).

Experience shows that the corporate culture of a community is a powerful source of self-development and an essential support for the development institute local government. The main thing for any culture, including corporate culture, is what happens at the level social behavior. IN corporate system values rules and concrete behavior of the population are more consistent with each other than anywhere else.

Corporate culture is both a process and a result: it shapes human value(community) and at the same time is the result of related interactions.