Organisational Behaviour - an overview | Science

Running head: ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Organisational Behaviour
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR1
Topic- Impact of culture on organizational behaviour and performance
Introduction
This essay presents a detailed analysis of the impact of organisational culture on
organizational performance. The major purpose of the essay is to develop a comprehensive
insight about how corporate culture can affect organizational and employee performance.
When looking at the organization or observing it, whether big or small, it is often observed
that a unique personality is always associated with the organization or the business; this
means each company has its own flair or attitude which significantly takes on the world and
effectively run their own business territory. Such unique personality consists of a set of
common beliefs and practices in an organization and such similar values and goals are shared
among the employees in the organisation to move unanimously towards the common goal.
Thereby, in general it can be stated that organisational culture can significantly affect
organizational overall behaviour and determine how employees perform or behave in the
system. To better understand how a culture can shape the organization affecting behaviour
and performance, the major focus of this analysis is centred on four different organizational
including clan culture, hierarchical, market and adhocracy culture.
Analysis
As put forward by Choo (2013), a clan culture revolves around people-focused
approach in which the organization tend to feel like a happy family, as the working
environment seems to be friendly. In response to this statement, Azanza, Moriano and Molero
(2013) also mentioned that under the clan culture people have a lot in common as the leaders
seem to be behaving as mentors. In favour of clan culture, Taplin (2017), for example,
mentioned that Alphabet (parent of Google) is widely known for its employee-friendly
corporate culture because it explicitly defines itself as the most unconventional and includes

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR2
perks like telecommunicating, flexitime, on-site doctors, free-employee lunch, etc.
Consequently, Alphabet is one of the leading IT businesses in the world with the 90% of its
market share in search queries (Taplin 2017).
However, businesses in today’s dynamic business environment mostly prefer to focus
on innovation as the survival needs instead of proudly adopting a friendly working
environment. Gimenez-Espin, Jiménez-Jiménez and Martinez-Costa (2013) in their
organizational behaviour study chose adhocracy culture over clan culture in relation to
better organizational performance. Choo (2013) mentioned that adhocracy organizational
culture enable the organization to be follow the dynamics and become creative working
environment. Thus, employees being the significant part of the organization takes a risks and
leaders stand as the innovators and risk takers. This means experiments and innovation are
the backbone of adhocracy culture. In order to justify the functions of adhocracy culture,
Krebs (2016) mentioned about the ongoing technology revolution of Tesla Motor;
innovation skills of Elon Mask enabled Tesla to manufacture electronic cars in the market
when the global automobile sector fights to grow up through a better pricing approach. Tesla
took the risk of standing apart from the crowd successfully.
However, Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2016) arguably stated
that even though Hierarchical culture is mostly criticized by scholars due to its longstanding
hierarchical protocol but the large businesses and visionary leaders often choose to maintain a
hierarchy in the system. For example, Toyota Motor from Japan runs the global car
manufacturing sector due to its formalized as well as structured workplace (Jayamaha et al.
2014). This means that hierarchical procedures order employees to perform the tasks.
Leaders take pride of the efficiency –based coordination. However, Wiewiora et al. (2013)
argued that hierarchical culture often delays the pace of operation due to hierarchical
communication. For example, in 2007, when automobile sector in US was crowded by