Organizational symbols such as ceremonies, dress codes, and other observable aspects of an organizational culture speak a lot about the culture of the organization to outsiders (Hiriyappa, 2009). Therefore, it is easier for an outsider to easily judge the culture of an organization based on an analysis of its symbols. Therefore, it is possible for an outsider to easily discern an organization’s underlying values through analyzing its symbols as compared to an insider with several years of experience (Hiriyappa, 2009). Thus, outsiders have about 70% chance of understanding an organization’s culture from its cultural and behavioral elements.
This assertion can be backed up with various arguments. For example, an organization’s image and identity is very critical for its success in the external environment. Different organizations try to build a strong image and identity to portray a picture of unity, purpose, and dedication to their mission and objectives (Hiriyappa, 2009). As such, there is a very strong relationship between an organizations culture and its identity. Consequently, organizations tend to focus more on their image through the symbols, brands, and customer service to show the outside world that they have good organizational culture. Therefore, for an outsider, looking at the attempts by organizations to build a strong image through its symbols and other aspects of its culture, it is much easier to comprehend the culture of the company from that external perspective (Hiriyappa, 2009).
On the contrary, insiders within an organization are more focused on executing their mandate and carrying out their tasks. Therefore, they pay little attention to some of the important aspects of their organization’s culture (Miner, 2011). For the most part, insiders often try to adhere to the rules laid out by the management. Therefore they have little tie to think about the company’s symbols or any other aspect if the company’s culture. In this regard, therefor, the insiders have a little chance of understanding the culture of the company.
I concur with the view that pressure for organizational change originates form the environment. Organizations do not operate in isolation. They are affected by environmental changes including technological changes, the legal, economic, and sociopolitical transformations taking place in their external environment (Miner, 2011). In order to survive and remain influential in the industry, an organization must be able to respond positively to these changes within their environment. For example, when new technologies emerge, it is paramount for them firm to adopt any such technologies in order to remain relevant.
Conversely, the pressure for stability often comes from the organization’s internal environment. Organizational stability is often associated with improved performance and continuity. Stable organizations are those that are able to maintain a good employee turnover and a sustained level of performance in the industry (Hiriyappa, 2009). Instability affects progression and continuity by making it difficult to plan ahead and forecast the future of the company.
Therefore, in as much as organizational change is positive for the company’s development, in the long run, there is growing pressure internally to remain stable. The organization can be better placed to respond to changes in its external environment by remaining stable internally.
Evidence-based management (EBM) places significance emphasis on the need for managers to base their decisions on scientific evidence found in existing literature (French, 2011). This approach promotes the application of current best practices in decision-making processes in current organizations. However, most managers often make their decisions based either on their intuition or experience (French, 2011). This seems to deviate from the demand for managers to rely on scientific data and facts to make their decisions. The main concern, therefore, is how do the managers apply evidence-based management by relying on their experience and intuition to make judgments?
There is a very thin line between evidence-based management and the use of intuition or experience in decision making. This is because both EBM and intuition or experience are based on previous experiences. However, while EBM is based on the experiences of other managers in similar situations, personal experience is based on one’s previous decisions. Intuition develops through a series of past events that make a person more aware of their environment and what is required of them (French, 2011). Therefore, intuition and personal experience are well established within a manager’s previous experiences in making certain decisions. Thus, experience and intuition are rooted in evidence-based management because they rely on previous facts and analysis of previous decisions by a manager (Shapira, 2002). Hence, managers can still be said to have used EBM when they make their decisions from their experience or intuition.
The rational model of decision making is the most appropriate for use in a rapidly changing organization. The rational model is most applicable in an environment where the manager is confronted with numerous competing alternatives, from where the manager has to make a logical decision (French, 2011). In this case, it is assumed that the manager is objective and informed of the consequences of each option and that he would select the most relevant choice. Thus, there is no time for negotiations to reach a compromise, as the political model of decision making would demand.
Therefore, in a rapidly changing environment, it is crucial to have strong leaders who fully understand the demanding nature of the decision making process to be able to select the most appropriate alternative for the company.
