14 Culture and trust in technology-driven organizations
being made at the top of the organization. The organizational practices
noted by the Likert System I are consistent with the characteristics out-
lined by Burns and Stalker as being prevalent in mechanistic organiza-
tional environments.
Likert System II organizations are characterized by a lack of commit-
ment between lower and upper levels of management. Management uses
rewards to achieve the appropriate or desired behavior. Communication
is mostly generated at the top with some upward ow of information.
Decisions are made primarily at the top of the organization with some
decisions being delegated at or to lower levels in the organization.
Likert System III organizations operate in an environment where
management offers motivation through rewards and occasional punish-
ment for those who defy or do not support authority. Big decisions come
from the top down to lower levels of the organization. Management often
listens to employees, but reserves the right to make the nal decision.
There is some reliance by management on intrinsic rewards, however,
extrinsic rewards are most often used. Most of the employees generally
exhibit favorable attitudes toward management.
Likert System IV organizations are characterized as having highly pro-
ductive employees. Management encourages participation and involve-
ment in setting organizational goals and performance and intrinsic
rewards are commonly used. Decision-making occurs through group
processes where each group is linked by individuals who are members
of more than one group. Management and workers have a close working
relationship utilizing a team-based approach to problem solving and
communication ows in all directions across the organization. The orga-
nizational practices noted by the Likert System IV are consistent with the
characteristics outlined by Burns and Stalker as being prevalent in organic
organizations.
2.6 Connection between mechanistic and organic
cultures and Likert management systems
Authors and theorists collectively believe that the cultural characteris-
tics of an organization are related to the management systems operating
within that organization. Likert developed a management system that
can be used as an indicator of subordinate relationships in organiza-
tions. The Likert system emphasizes the importance of the organiza-
tional structure and the cultural environment. During previous years
others have used the Likert Systems I and IV interchangeably with
Burns and Stalker’s mechanistic and organic cultures. Likert also devel-
oped a survey instrument to measure Systems I to IV that is widely
recognized and extensively used. Research conducted by Burns and
15Chapter two: Literature review
Stalker demonstrated that the management processes in organizations
are related to their culture. Their research explained the relationship
between organizations and their operational environments resulting
in the two divergent management systems known as mechanistic and
organic cultures. Theorists share Likert’s view that the culture of an
organization is linked to the prevailing processes and systems operating
within the organization.
The Likert System I is considered to be analogous to Burns and
Stalker’s mechanistic culture, displaying the same organizational char-
acteristics typically found in organizations having mechanistic cultural
environments. Both organizational environments depend heavily on
involvement of upper management in the decision-making process and
channeling of communications. In these environments motivation is
achieved generally through fear. Close adherence to the chain of com-
mand and little or no teamwork among organizational members are
prevalent in mechanistic environments.
The Likert System II shares many elements of Burns and Stalker’s
mechanistic cultural environments albeit at a more moderate level than
those found in System I. These mechanistic characteristics are found and
implemented in varying degrees. Mechanistic elements present in System
II environments include some upward communication, but informa-
tion ows primarily down to lower levels of the organization from top
management, and motivation is accomplished through the fear of being
punished. However, these shared characteristics are not practiced at the
same level as practiced in Likert System I (mechanistic) environments. For
example, in System I environments most of the decisions are made at the
top of the organization. In System II environments, for the most part, deci-
sions are made at the top of the organization with a few decisions being
made at lower levels of the organization.
The Likert System III exhibits many characteristics of an organic
cultural environment and includes the presence of some upward com-
munication, uid information owing to upper management as well as
to lower levels of the organization, and moderate usage of teams to solve
problems. Although System III is closely aligned with organic environ-
ments, there are some differences in the level or degree to which the
various elements in common are practiced. For example, in System III
environments communication within the organization ows vertically
as well as horizontally, whereas in System IV (organic) environments
communication ows vertically, horizontally, and laterally (with peers)
throughout the organization.
The Likert System IV is analogous to an organic environment, with
both exhibiting comparable organizational characteristics. Both the
Likert System IV and organic cultural environments recognize the impor-
tance of all employees supporting the team-based approach to problem
16 Culture and trust in technology-driven organizations
solving and communications owing in all directions. These practices
areprevalent in the culture of the organization. In these organizational
environments group participation is highly visible. The relationship
between Burns and Stalker’s mechanistic and organic cultures and the
Likert System is summarized in Table2.2.
The Likert Systems I and IV and Burns and Stalker cultural environ-
ments display common organizational characteristics. The Likert System
I is analogous to the characteristics outlined in a mechanistic cultural
environment, whereas the Likert System IV is analogous with the charac-
teristics found in organic cultural environments. Likert Systems II and III
share some characteristics of mechanistic and organic cultures. These sys-
tems can be said to reside between mechanistic and organic cultures on
Table2.2 The Likert Management Style
a
and Organic/Mechanistic Cultures
b
Management style/culture Characteristics
Likert System I
(Exploitive–Authoritative)
Mechanistic
Vertical communication (downward).
Practically no teamwork.
Decisions made at the top of the organization.
Work governed by procedures or directions
from supervisor.
Close adherence to chain of command.
Highly specialized task structure.
Likert System II
(Benevolent–Authoritative)
Leader uses rewards to encourage appropriate
performance.
Slight amount of teamwork.
Communication ows down from
management.
Listens somewhat to concerns lower in the
organization.
There may be some delegation of decisions.
Almost all major decisions are still made
centrally.
Likert System III (Consultative) Some upward ow of information and efforts
to listen carefully to ideas.
Moderate amount of teamwork.
Communication ows down and up.
Major decisions are still largely made at the top.
Likert System IV (Participative)
Organic
Leader makes maximum use of participative
methods (teamwork).
People participate in decision making.
Communication ows in all directions.
Continuous adjustments of tasks as needed.
Source: (a) Likert, R., The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill,
NewYork, 1967. (b) Burnes, T., and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovation, Tavistock,
London, 1961.
17Chapter two: Literature review
the culture continuum. The Likert System I was used as representative of
the Burns and Stalker mechanistic cultural environments and the Likert
System IV was used as representative of an organic cultural environment
for the purpose of measuring culture in this study.
2.7 Summary of culture literature review
There are many denitions of organizational culture; however, these de-
nitions generally refer to the shared meaning (behaviors), values, beliefs,
and expectations or practices within the organization. Theorists believe
that the cultural characteristics of an organization are related to the orga-
nization’s management system. It is theorized that trust makes organi-
zations more organic, eliminating the need to rely on the abundance of
impersonal rules to manage in changing environments and that high-
trust cultures usually have fewer and less rigid controls in place. Organic
cultural environments as dened by Burns and Stalker can be dened
in terms of Likert’s System IV management process, whereas mechanis-
tic cultures can be dened in terms of the Likert System I management
process. Culture was assessed for the purpose of this study as being on a
continuum from mechanistic to organic and was measured using Likert
Systems I and IV.
2.8 Organizational trust
Trust is globally viewed as a social expectation that has to do with people’s
perception of the integrity/honesty, caring, and competence of an indi-
vidual or system that is veried by experience. Trust is a condition of
situations and of human relationships, therefore it is surmised that orga-
nizational situations can encourage or discourage trust. Trust is essen-
tial in developing mutually dependent relationships and is based upon
repetitive actions that yield constant results. The most frequent triggers
of mistrust, according to Ryan and Oestreich (1998) which were identied
through extensive eld investigations were as follows: (1) management
and supervisor displays of abrasive and abusive conduct, (2) ambiguous
behavior by management and supervisors, and (3) the employee’s percep-
tions about the organization’s culture. The organization’s human resource
system functions and the behavior of leaders generally will provide clues
about the nature of the culture and whether the culture is fear-based or
trust-based. The perception and actions of the leadership team can trigger
responses of fear and mistrust.
It is easier to achieve trust when an organization’s aim, vision, mis-
sion, values, objectives, and goals are understood and shared. Being hon-
est and concerned for the well-being of others is at the core of trust. This
does not mean that the interests of others always come before the needs
18 Culture and trust in technology-driven organizations
ofthe organization as a whole. However, it does require an understanding
of the impact of one’s actions on others and ways to balance the needs of
individuals and the organization.
2.9 Dening organizational trust
The denition of trust varies from author to author. Some selected deni-
tions of trust are highlighted in the following text. Zand (1997) denes
trust as “a willingness to increase your vulnerability with another person,
whose behavior you cannot control, in a situation in which your potential
benets are much less than your potential losses if the other person abuses
your vulnerability.” The vulnerability placed on an individual afrms that
trust is a risk-based activity. Shaw (1997) denes trust as the belief that
the individual being depended upon will meet expectations. Trust can be
viewed as the willingness to rely or depend on some event, individual,
group, or system. Trust requires a focus or an object of evaluation specic
to the area of interest. According to Lane and Bachmann (1998), trust is a
social phenomenon that makes accomplishing work within an organiza-
tion easier and collaboration possible. Gilbert (1998) believes that organi-
zational trust is the feeling of condence in and support of an employer.
Shockley et al. dene organizational trust as “the organization’s willing-
ness, based upon its culture and communication behaviors in relationships
and transactions, to be appropriately vulnerable based on the belief that
another individual, group, or organization is competent, open and honest,
concerned, reliable, andidentied with common goals, norms, and values.”
Many authors and theorists dene trust based on elements or attri-
butes that are needed to gain and sustain trust. These attributes or ele-
ments are oftentimes included in the denitions generated by these
authors in dening trust. Trust has been dened frequently as ranging
from having no specic attributes to having ve attributes. Butler (1991)
dened trust as having ten attributes that include availability, competence,
consistency, discreteness, fairness, integrity/honesty, loyalty, openness,
promise fulllment, and receptivity. Trust is most frequently dened in
terms of having at least one but not more than ve elements or attributes
as demonstrated in Table2.3. The most frequently cited attributes of trust
found in the literature are as follows: openness and honesty, competence,
reliability, identication, and concern for employees.
2.10 Principal trust attributes
Collectively, authors and theorists believe that there are attributes of
trust that are important in gaining and maintaining trust in organiza-
tions. The literature review highlighted as many as 12 trust attributes that
are cited by authors and theorists as being important to buildingtrust
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.