Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
INTRODUCTION
This paper is prepared to analyse the organizational culture of Quinlan, and to discuss the
reasons behind the low levels of staff morale and the problem of flexibility for Quinlan,
based on the information in the case study and literature. In the first part, the
organizational culture of Quinlan is analysed; the factors explaining this culture and the
extent to which the culture is responsible for the company current difficulties are
discussed. In the second part, causes of low workplace morale and possible solutions that
can be applied by the Director of HRM at Quinlan, who has become aware that the
underperformance of the company has affected workplace morale, are mentioned
respectively. Lastly, the meaning of flexibility in practice for organizational and
management strategy is explained; and the challenges that Quinlan faces in responding to
its competitors who operate more flexibly are mentioned.
Organizational culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that are developed by a given
group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration,
and that has worked well enough to be considered valuable; therefore, it is taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems
(Schein, 1992, cited in Rollinson et al., 2002). There are different views in the literature as
to whether culture is something that the organization has, or organization is a culture itself.
However, at Quinlan, the prevailing idea seems to be that culture is devised by
management and transmitted or imposed on the rest of the organization as part of the
seductive process of achieving membership and gaining commitment, which is referred as
corporate culture by Linstead and Grafton Small (1992).
According to Schein view (cited in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001: pp. 626) culture is the
sharing of meanings and "œbasic assumptions among organizational employees; and it
consists of three levels, each distinguished by their visibility and accessibility to
individuals. Schein first level is the surface manifestations of culture that are its most
visible and accessible forms. Artefacts, courses and heroes are the most important surface
manifestations for Quinlan. First one is evident in the priority given to store
refurbishments to signal that Quinlan is changing and freshening up its image. Secondly,
courses for induction, orientation and training, used to educate new members are so
important for Quinlan that its recruitment process is found similar to that of the civil
service. Thirdly, the importance given to hero, the individual who established and
personifies the values and beliefs of the culture, and provides role models for emulation, is
evident in the dominant presence of Thomas Quinlan, and the strong commitment of his
followers to his values (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001).
Schein second level concerns organization values and beliefs, which refer to those things
that have personal or organizational meaning to the founders or senior management
(Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001). An important source of values for Quinlan is the views
of Thomas Quinlan, as modified by the company current senior management. Thomas
Quinlan paternalistic agenda for his staff and people-centred policies within the company
have shaped Quinlan values, and provided a common direction for all employees, making
unions unnecessary. During his employment, employees knew that when they followed the
specified practices, they would be rewarded by high level of benefits.
Finally, basic assumptions are located at Schein third level and they include the
assumptions that individuals hold about the organization and how it functions. They are
invisible, preconscious and relate to aspects of human behaviour, and the organization
relationship to its environment (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001). When evaluated
according to the Schein list of basic cultural assumptions (cited in MPO Module Book,
2003: Section 13), Quinlan was considering itself as dominant due to the high-quality
goods symbolised by its Britannia own label, which in turn led to high popularity and
profitability. The company was product oriented, assuming that consumers are interested in
quality (Brassington and Pettitt, 2003), so, it was confident that as long as the quality was
high, it would be able to sell. This confidence resulted in ignorance of innovativeness and
flexibility; and the company did not take the competitive threats into consideration until it
faced with decreases in sales. Moreover, Quinlan was past oriented. Relying on its past
success, it missed the radical changes in the environment. Finally, Quinlan had
paternalistic authority system, and the environment seemed to be cooperative due to the
generous reward system.
Nevertheless, these values and assumptions were valid until the customers started to be
drawn to more fashionable competitors. Instead of seeing itself as the leader in the market,
Quinlan began to develop new management structures, such as project groupings and
marketing orientation. Furthermore, new harsher style of management, instead of
paternalistic one, has made the work environment uncomfortable. Life has become
competitive for employees since their performance started to be evaluated based on
individual targets, and poor performers have faced with reduced hours. Employees have
been expected to be more active to attract customers, and they have faced with uncertainty
in their employment due to flexible contracts, instead of previous life-long career. In
summary, the new methods are inconsistent with the traditional ones, reflecting the change
in the company beliefs and assumptions.
When culture and structure are thought as the two sides of the same coin, as suggested by
Meek (1988: p. 465), it is necessary to mention the structure of Quinlan to highlight its
culture. Quinlan was applying mechanistic structure, which stresses rules, policies, and
