X hits on this document

558 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

141 / 185

which would require the managers to select a random sample of raters for each employee

(Pollack & Pollack, 1996).

In addition, with respect to the organizational culture measurement, there are two

perspectives recommending different methods of measurement. The emic measurement

tradition advocates qualitative, rich methods of measurement capturing the native point of

view (Denison, 1996), while the etic perspective promotes quantitative measurement.

Here, I adopted the etic perspective and I measured culture with a survey instrument. The

benefit of this measurement is that it allows the researcher to capture culture across many

different organizations (as in this case) and facilitates generalizability, while the emic

perspective usually suits better research conducted in a few organizations. However, the

drawback of the quantitative approach is that it imposes a theoretical framework on

organizational culture but forsakes the in-depth understanding of each individual culture

as well as the opportunity to develop new theory.On the other hand, while a qualitative

approach fosters the in-depth understanding of unique processes within each

organization, it may also limit the generalizability of findings obtained within each to a

different set of organizations. Therefore, the benefits of using a theoretically driven

quantitative approach seemed to outweigh the costs.

Finally, the focus on individual cognitive perceptions may be construed as a

limitation. Specifically, focusing on individual perceptions does not shed light on

understanding group processes, and how they are influenced by culture. It is however,

useful, for making inferences on the individual level that may in the future be further

researched and generalized to the group level.

131

Document info
Document views558
Page views558
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 22:52:55 UTC 2016
Pages185
Paragraphs6580
Words41049

Comments