Abstract
The subject of organizational cultures can be very mysterious and difficult for many to comprehend. Through investigation of various published articles on organizational culture, published research papers, and academic dissertations, many insights that are important have been found and exposed. Through investigating the sub-topics of ethical implications, spiritual leadership, modeling, and communication of or within organizational cultures the subject of what people think organizational cultures are, how people relate to such cultures, and the value of understanding organizational cultures is explored. Although many people may not even consider an organizational culture when they get a job, the culture may become instrumental for control of the organization especially in regard to ethical and spiritual matters. Overall, the strength found in the following paper is in its use of various sources to show the breadth and depth of the subject to allow the reader the ability to make their own conclusions and do their own research.
Organizational Cultures
No one that is pro-life and has a moral compass wants to work at an organization that has the same or a similar organizational culture as an abortion clinic. Also demoralized people that like their lifestyles may not want to work for a boss that comes straight from church to work every day. Such fact alone shows the importance of the ethical implications involved in organizational cultures, and when such people have to work together something has to “give” (or so it would appear) in order to preserve organizational unity and prevent a hostile workplace.
Many times people in a business have thing happen in their lives that deeply upset them, and in those times spiritual leadership may be sought by employees. The value of spiritual leadership however is that if practiced over the long-term it could develop very strong communities of people that benefit from the long-term dividends of eternal security through work done to fulfill the great commission. When a business makes a huge overhaul that is needed to transform the business from good to great, then spiritual leadership becomes essential for keeping people properly connected to each other and to the organization.
With much consideration of the ethical and spiritual components of an organization’s culture, a deeper look into the modeling of an organization’s culture may be needed. What one finds at such a point is that many people describe organizational culture differently, and organizational culture has a great many parts that truly are different. Overall, what things drive organizational culture is also difficult and debated.
The subject of open communication is also important to consider because it gives the prospect for organizational culture to be less of an issue for management to consider because open communication in itself can cause the business to go in the direction that leadership intends. Also communication can structure a business in various ways, so it is important to consider (especially in regard to the concept of shared meaning). Overall, much effort has been taken to show the value of the connectivity of organizational culture and its implications.
Ethical Implication of Organizational Cultures
In general the concept of an organization having a culture generates many ethical implications that are far reaching. Although leadership may want to generate the culture of the organization in order to formulate good working relationships between employees, the cultural climate of the employees can produce an organizational culture of its own under the correct conditions. The ethical implications thus of organizational cultures are not just that the cultures are good or bad but instead the question that arises is a question of who gets the control of the culture and for what purpose.
Ethical Decision Making and Organizational Culture
Steve Bourne investigated the role of community norms in determining ethical perceptions of employees’, and what he found is that the community itself becomes a culture in itself that makes an ethical framework for a firm to operation from (Bourne, 1999). Bourne’s research has discovered that the mini-culture among a few people can potentially moderate the organization’s ability to create an organizational ethical culture that is homogenous, and this is true for many geographical locations (Bourne, 1999). In short what Steve Bourne has discovered is that the employees of an organization can collectively moderate the culture of the organization that may otherwise originate with the business leaders.
The research that Steve Bourne conducted was based upon a community in the southeastern United States, and the study was a scientific study that included a sample group of 343 employees from 32 firms (Bourne, 1999). Bourne implemented a 36-item survey that assessed the perceptions of works on a five point scale of agreement/ disagreement, and the 36 items had raised questions of agreement over topics such as ethical value, issues involving one’s position, workplace fairness, general organizational climate, and ethical climate (Bourne, 1999). What was reasoned is that organizations outside of the firm can generate, “community based microculture” that may influence a group of employees that would thus moderate the company’s ability to generate and implement their own organizational culture that would otherwise come from the leadership down to the workers (Bourne, 1999).
Although organizational cultures are not always directed by a small group of employees, the concept that Bourne promotes could be seen in the following example. A company has very liberal management and is headquartered in place like Los Angeles that has some of the most favorable laws in the nation for gay rights, and the same company also has a branch office in Birmingham, Alabama that largely has an opposing culture to that of the company. If a few employees all belong to the same church and work for the company at the Birmingham facility, then they could easily moderate the organizational culture for the entire facility against what the leadership would want and most if not all the workers may simply go along with the direction set by the small group.
The question that thus arises is who or what should decide the culture of the organization? Should the employees take the lead set by the leadership, or should the leadership simply adopt its business plan to the culture that the employees or the industry generates. Overall, the central theme among many that write or think about organizational culture is that the person or the people that control the culture of the organization will also control the productivity and issues generated by those in the organization.
Organizational culture can impact business audits. Janice Morris made the case that the corruption in the financial industry that ultimately lead to the great recession was caused by pressures on the industry for auditors to “look the other way” when presented with irregularities and possible fraud in financial statements (Morris, 2009, p 3). One could even reason that if the great recession brought about any added value to society, then that added value was the knowledge of how business culture can be so corrupt as to cause the gatekeepers of an entire nation’s key industry (namely the financial industry) to suffer a catastrophic moral failure. In fact the ethical corruption is described as so incredible that not only have corporate leaders and auditors been impacted to make immoral decisions, but also an immoral company culture is understood to have formed through corporate leadership influencing their subordinates to be morally corrupt as well (Morris, 2009, p 3-4).
The argument that is made is that since the consequences of misconduct by auditors is so profound, all members of the profession must act ethically and produce high quality audits and generate a good ethical organizational culture because otherwise the industry can be in a poor position for gatekeeping corporate America against scandals and unethical behaviors (Morris, 2009, p 5). Morris even went so far as to investigate several studies on how changes in corporate culture change ethical decision making, and he found specifically in the profession of auditing that the critical issue at stake is how changes in culture impact audit quality (Morris, 2009, p 7). Overall, one could thus reason that with the amount of connectivity that businesses have between employees and those serving a business that ethical behavior is not something that is ordinarily produced by an individual acting ethically in a private and isolated sphere of influence, but instead even gatekeepers for a business normally take their moral directives from a source external to themselves that is found somewhere among the industry.
Competitive cultures are not always unethical. Kevin Kelly completed a dissertation as a scientific study that attempted to measure the moral intensity felt between ethical decision making and organizational culture (Kelley, 2007, p 1). The study hypothesized that competitive organizational culture is associated with negative ethical decision-making while collaborative organizational culture is related to positive ethical decision-making (Kelley, 2007, p 1). Although the study surveyed 365 participants, very little statistical significance was found in favor of the proposed hypothesis, and the significance was so low as to consider the findings to have little utility (Kelley, 2007, p 1).
Kevin Kelley suggested that his sample was perhaps biased because his sample comprised of 80% of people with a college education that mainly came from the Midwest (Kelley, 2007, p 37). Kelley’s study thus promoted the hope that future research would find that a relationship between unethical behavior and competitive corporate cultures does indeed occur. Overall, although competitive cultures may not be more unethical compared to collaborate cultures, Kelley’s study found a positive association between cultures that are more collaborative and higher recognition of ethical dilemmas along with higher intention to report those dilemmas to authorities (Kelley, 2007, p 31).
Spiritual Leadership in Organizational Cultures
Although many would simply think about ethical dilemmas and moral issues in regard to the topics that take a moral role model to solve, some of the larger questions that organizations need to face may require a spiritual role model or spiritual leader to solve. In many organizations death, illnesses, tragedies, and a host of other problems can cause employees to stop or reduce production while they consider changes and the uncertainty that is ahead of them. Although many organizations may impose secular humanism and a version of pluralism to give employees guidance and comport in their lives, the subject of spiritual leadership in a secular organization may not be so simple nor should it.
The Role of the Spiritual Leader
Armando Salas-Amaro describes the spiritual leader as someone that can navigate through difficult times while showing caring and respect despite problems such as those of a moral nature in the organization, economic in nature, or even uncertainty in the organization itself (Salas-Amaro, 2013). The work focuses not on being a leader form a particular denomination or religion, but instead it focuses on things that make leaders effective while they exercise spiritual approaches to leadership (Salas-Amaro, 2013). The work also makes the case that effective leaders emerge in difficult times as they respond to uncertainty, and such people are often highly spiritual people in Salas-Amaro’s opinion (Salas-Amaro, 2013).
The key to successful spiritual leadership according to Salas-Amaro is to successfully motivate the individuals in the organization (Salas-Amaro, 2013). Although such a point may be true in regard to business practices that are most financially rewarding in the short-term, what authors like Armando Salas-Amaro often neglect is that the value of spiritual leadership may rest less in the acquisition of money or other short-term gains and more in the long-term value to both the employee and the company. Jesus Christ for example gives the parable of the talents to show how investment now brings long-term rewards in the distant future (Matthew 25:16-19) as well as how spiritual problems and issues in general are not quick fix.
In some businesses employees will work over one or many decades, and when they do they may feel that they need some direction and support in their lives beyond the direction and support that they get at their jobs. Spiritual leadership in that regard would give back to the employees an extra benefit for working at the company. In such cases the spiritual leader may benefit overall not just because of a short-term investment to make a change during crisis but instead because of a long-term investment into the worker’s total health and welfare.
The value of servant leadership. Robert Greenfield coined the term “servant leader” as early as the 1970’s (Greenfield, 1996, p 1). The case that Greenfield made is that authentic leaders are chosen by the people as a result of their activity to listen, engage, withdraw themselves and so forth (Greenfield, 1996, 2). Robert Greenfield saw the forces of good or evil coming from attitudes and actions of individuals, and he believed that movements, societies, and organizations are simply a collection of the combined forces of individuals (Greenfield, 1996, 329).
Robert Greenfield truly added a valuable perspective to business as a field of study through his notion of servant leadership because through developing the concept at AT&T in his long-term practice of training managers, he perfected what would become a contribution that swept the globe and changed the way that management is done (Greenfield, 1996, p 1). The value of servant leadership for organizational cultures is that it both allows for leaders to be chosen by the people and thus reflect the values of the people, and it allows for the people to be transformed by the servitude of the leader instead of the leader commanding that the workers be transformed to the values and ideology of the company. The value of servant leadership for the spiritual leadership of a company is that it allows the organization’s culture to be transformed by a process that the employees would not have to fear as something completely foreign and possibly comprising of a moral hazard. Overall, employees could instead see that the leader is using his values, ideology, and such to serve, and as a result the employee could see that the spiritual leadership of the leader need not be something that should be particularly feared because through the leader serving the employee can see and know the good fruit of the perspective that the leader offers.
Leading like Jesus. Matthew 10:38 shows Christ stating that anyone that does not take up their cross and follow him is indeed not worthy of him. The early church took up the idea by utilizing the concept of being “crucified with Christ” as can be seen in Galatians 2:20. For a person to thus lead like Christ, he or she must make their bodies into a witness to the gospel message through being transformed by the crucifixion of Christ, birth, and resurrection in order for the leader to be a new creation in Christ for Christ to work through them.
Ken Blanchard published a work on leadership as it was his goal to promote that the reader would surrender their life and leadership to Him (Blanchard, 2005, xi). Blanchard also promoted the concept of using Jesus as a role model for leadership (Blanchard, 2005, p 11). Works like those of Blanchard’s work are focused on both Christian evangelical theology and spiritual transformation of existing leaders, and Blanchard’s text specifically promotes the concept of people being called out of their professions and going through a process to be commissioned to work toward the fulfilment of the great commission (Blanchard, 2005, p 125).
One could see that the values and principles that lay behind most organizations naturally are intended to produce a worldly product or wealth. Businesses often take great steps to promote an organizational culture that reflects gains that are non-spiritual but instead are physical in nature. Such contributions as what Ken Blanchard would ultimately make to an organization’s culture are those that both cannot be measured and do not add value to a company in the eyes of many that only think in terms of financial statements.
Transformational companies. Jim Collins did an investigation to see what makes companies transform from good companies to great companies, and what he found is that the companies that make the transformation are not lead by high profile people that become celebrities but instead are led by people that often live quiet and secluded lives (Collins, 2001, p 13). According to Collins leaders that transform a company from good to great are those that do not add a revolutionary new vision but instead they get rid of the bad employees and higher good employees as well as to make sure that everyone is correctly situated in the business (Collins, 2001, p 13). Such people also generate a culture of discipline and make sure that the company is doing the best practices instead of just doing things the way that things have been done simply because they have always been done that way (Collins, 2001, p 13).
The danger in utilizing what Collins promotes in terms of company transformation is the danger of tyrants emerging that dictate a company’s culture. Collins gives an example of Burroughs Corporation that had a huge jump in performance during the reign of Ray MacDonald who intimidated people, dictated, and insulted the intelligence of others bellow him regularly, and what happened when Ray MacDonald left the company is that the company did not have the leadership or the culture needed to continue its high return to the general market and thus it performed worse in the end compared to when Ray MacDonald first took office (Collins, 2001, p 130-131). Overall, the value of the work of Collins to corporate culture is that it demonstrates how to transform a business from good to great without doing it in a way that is vastly detrimental to the spiritual welfare of employees.
Modeling of Organizational Cultures
One article in particular noted that organizational culture provides both emotional knowledge and intellectual capital while significantly accounting for the motivation of employees (Mihaela, 2012). What Mihaela thus contributes is a conceptual analysis of organizational culture modeling in the framework of system dynamics (Mihaela, 2012). Overall, from such work one key concept that Mihaela discovers is that no one may, “buy the heart of an employee,” but managers may have a culture generator that motivates employees through constructing consensus among employees (Mihaela, 2012). The idea of thus using the dynamics of organizational culture to construct consensus is central to the motivation for modeling the culture, and the idea is that leadership should model culture in order to have control over it.
Mihaela argues that the most effective culture is one that is both flexible and stable with an unchanging mission and values as the flexibility is understood to relate to the operation and structure of the company and its ability to adapt itself to external and internal conditions (Mihaela, 2012). Mihaela’s big contribution to the subject of organizational culture is his consideration given to the usefulness of computer models that simulate an organization’s culture, and his case is that by the simulations managers can better understand the organizational culture in their companies in order to make good decisions (Mihaela, 2012). Overall, Mihaela gives a good assessment of the concept of modeling organizational culture with a dynamic system that people can visualize and interact with, and as a result advancement in the subject of corporate culture is significant with his work.
The larger question to ask is what other major breakthroughs occur in regard to modeling organizational culture besides the suggestion that culture should be modeled with a computer software program that gives a visual display of related symbols. The fact that organizational culture is a subject that is a little undefined in regard to its elements makes modeling all the more difficult and opinion based. Overall, the subject of modeling organizational culture continues to be speculative enough to have room for debate and varying definitions, but some people are indeed working toward developing concrete representations of what would otherwise be unseen by detailed models.
The Development of Modeling Organizational Culture
The first prospect of a concrete idea regarding the modeling of organizational culture came from Anilkumar Bhate who wrote the first dissertation on objective modeling of culture, and as a result his dissertation was also the first to be about objective modeling of organizational culture (Bhate, 2001). The work proposed 20 components for detailed discussion that Bhate claimed had been needed for successful modeling, and it argued for 7 components to be used for successful modeling of organizational culture specifically (Bhate, 2001). Overall, the concept behind Bhate’s work is that both the organization’s culture and the culture at large need to be modeled together as the organization’s culture only comprises of 7 components in a larger 20 component system (Bhate, 2001). By Bhate making the first attempt to collect and define the components of culture and then to define the components of organizational culture, he began a new trend toward the prospect of using software to model organizational culture.
Organizational culture and intellectual capital. One paper in particular deviated from the modeling of organizational culture as a thing in itself, and the paper promoted a model for organizational culture that is related to intellectual capital (Sandra, 2007). The case that is made is that organizational culture is an essential component for having intellectual capital (Sandra, 2007). Not only that but also the paper makes organizational culture into a subject with a great many elements, and in this way each element has a series of variables, each variable has indicators to obtain its value (Sandra, 2007).
In such a model a few basic components are given, and those components comprise of human capital, structural capital, organizational capital, technological capital, relational capital, business capital, and social capital (Sandra, 2007). Through the process of carefully categorizing components, the case is made that culture is the main capital for intellectual capital (Sandra, 2007). Overall, not only does the work make a new paradigm for the subject of organizational culture but is also develops an even more complex plan for modeling organizational culture compared to many previous proposals.
Organizational culture and spirituality of leadership. Of particular interest is one paper that developed and implemented a model that measured the spiritual leadership behaviors of managers in contrast to the organizational culture that they are found in (Karadag, 2009). The study was so extensive that it included 2447 primary education teaches, 737 class teachers, and 1705 field teachers in Istanbul-Atasehir (Karadag, 2009). The study asserts that the spiritual leadership behaviors of primary education principals affects the process of formation of organizational culture (Karadag, 2009). What was discovered is that spiritual leadership is very significant in determining an organizations culture, and the results of the study support the possibility for a model being obtained (Karadag, 2009).
Will the future bring standard models? One can see that the subject of organizational culture has enough speculation that a great many models that include a wide variety of different factors are being proposed. The question of what models will dominate the subject is a question that may or may not be answered in the next ten years. Overall, modeling of organizational culture may be very speculative and based on beliefs regarding how rather entangled terms relate to one another, how they are important or unimportant, and how they relate to actual work performance.
Communication in Organizational Cultures
The subject of communication in organizational cultures is important for business success because one could estimate that one could be a successful leader by being good at communication with an organizational culture without much need for understanding the culture. The age old concept that, “we don’t know how it works, but just that it does” may be a sufficient statement from leadership in regard to an organization’s culture if the culture of the organization and the objectives of leadership can work together to accomplish the same goals. Good communication could thus reduce the need for the employer to be a moral role model and the people could thus continue to have the same culture without change as that culture collectively becomes productive on its own accord without leadership generating the culture.
Symbolic Communication can run a University
Some authors imply that the position of a university president has nothing to do with the performance of a university, and the comparison is even made to a blindfolded man in a dense traffic situation to show that a university president is powerless to do anything (Tierney, 1985). The case however that Tierney makes is that leaders both shape and are shaped by an organization’s “reality”, and leadership is only a symbolic web of actions and discourses (Tierney, 1985). Overall, the case that Tierney makes is that leaders become effective when they shape their organization by “spinning actions” through symbolic discourses (Tierney, 1985).
Incidents and organizational culture. The American Association of Mental Retardation writes about the health care industry as it describes how caregiving systems create incident-management systems that fail to explain dishonest and distorted communication (Aboud, 2006, p 438). The advice of the organization is to get workers to know and love their job while they work together for a common mission, and changing organizational culture for the better through establishing a mission, making clear how that mission operates as results are measured, and making effective processes and structures for open and honest communication (Aboud, 2006, p 439-440). The basic approach that is given by the organization is to reorganize the culture of a business through administration generating a plan for structuring the culture, implementing the culture, and communicating with the individuals in that culture.
What the advice given by the American Association of Mental Retardation shows is a common sort of approach used for structuring the culture in an organization. Such an approach suggests that ethical behavior can be controlled by an organization’s administrator through the administrator imposing organizational culture and receiving communication back from the employees. The fact that an organization like the American Association of Mental Retardation would issue such an article for advice means that it is not just a theoretical approach but instead a well-proven and well-grounded approach that renders good results.
What is of particular interest in the article is that it does not attempt to theorize about the various parts of organizational culture for the sake of controlling those parts, but instead it allows such things to be a total mystery while it intends to focus on imposing a culture and getting communication back. One could thus hypothesize that understanding the elements of organizational culture or how it works may not be key to running a successful business and thus such matters may have little or minor significance in controlling incidents at work or their repercussions.
Mergers and company acquisitions. One author notes that organizational culture is often the biggest obstacle to prevention of most mergers and acquisitions (Roach, 1988). A study is thus presented that examines organizational communication as well as organizational culture while an actual acquisition and merger of two organizations occurs (Roach, 1988). The study also used interviews after the merger along with metric-multidimensional scaling to measure the results (Roach, 1988). Although the work is a few decades old, the value behind such an article is that it gives insight into how communication occurs in an organization’s culture during times of crisis or unrest. Overall, such investigation can be valuable for understanding the best ways to protect the culture of a business from going bad as a result of things becoming unstable.
Conclusion and Future Study
A stark conclusion that can be drawn is that businesses should not have the power to impose a business culture onto individuals in ways that cause ill-will or unethical consequences. Unfortunately, much the same sentiment could be given for the subject of organizational culture and spiritual leadership. The stakes can even be very high when conflicts emerge between various systems of thought as well and between workers and employers.
Spiritual leadership in particular can be done in a few ways, and one way keeps the true value of the employee and the business in mind with the concept of servant leadership. Another approach that many businesses use is to simply pacify the people when they have spiritual needs in an attempt to take away the ‘sting’ of real world situations for the sake of keeping workers productive. Either way both approaches need to be focused on the businesses goals, but one approach may render slightly higher short-term gains while the other can give very long-term benefits.
Much of the question regarding what to do about organizational culture sometime may relate to questions about what organizational culture is and what components it has as well as questions regarding what influences it. Perhaps well into the future academics will agree upon what organizational culture is and what it is not, but until that time several models have been proposed that are worth considering. Even if the proper model is found, then the question that could arise is a question of the value of understanding an organization’s culture as opposed to simply ignoring it and promoting open two-way communication as a way of staying at the helm of the organization.
Future research and investigation into the subject of organizational culture would be best conducted by the implementation of a scientific study that is perhaps inspired from questions that are not well solved from other studies. Some of those questions may take the form of testing hypothesis regarding the value of one topology for modeling organizational culture as opposed to another. Ideally some of the concepts and methodologies in the field of ethics as formal philosophy may be useful for comparing various approaches to describing organizational culture and what drives it as well as its moral implications.
Another important topic for study would be the moral hazard and liability of spiritual leadership in an organization. Servant leadership may involve a great many downfalls when liability comes into play, and the same could be said for spiritual leadership in general simply because problems may arise in a business that would not even have been considered before implementing spiritual leadership in the workface. Some of those legal liabilities would need to be protected against in order to ensure secure employment and minimal negative legal and ethical consequences.
Many of the articles and dissertations mentioned are very extensive and have a great depth of content beyond what was mentioned in this review, and as a result the review could serve as a good guide for future study. The problem with doing a comprehensive future study however on the subject of organizational culture is that so much literature is available that other literature reviews should be taken into consideration as well. Overall, a person may be able to find literature on a number of topics within the subject of organizational culture even beyond what this paper has considered.
What however remains constant throughout much of the subject of organizational culture is that it is a topic that most people can speak about with some authority because it is a topic that most everyone that belongs to an organization will reflect upon from experience. The problem is much like politics and that is precisely what clouds the issue and stimulates the debate. Future study should thus be conducted with this in mind.
References
Aboud, Antone (2006). Incident Management, Organizational Culture, and Honest Communications. Mental Retardation, Volume 44, Number 6 (December), pp. 438-442. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/direct.asp?ArticleID=4945A1C4D592CB1462E3
Blanchard, Ken and Phil Hodges (2005). Lead Like Jesus. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.
Bhate, A. (2001). Objective modeling of culture. Stevens Institute of Technology. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 253-253 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304756152?accountid=12085. (304756152).
Bourne, S., & Snead, J. D. (1999). Environmental determinants of organizational ethical climate: A community perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(4), 283-290. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198096220?accountid=12085
Collins, Jim (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York, New York: HarperCollins.
Greenleaf, Robert (1996). On Becoming a Servant Leader. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Karadag, E. (2009). Spiritual leadership and organizational culture: A study of structural equation modeling. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 9(3), 1391-1405. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/236995567?accountid=12085
Kelley, K. M. (2007). Organizational culture's affect on ethical decision-making. (Saint Louis University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 1-63. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304804010?accountid=12085. (304804010).
Mihaela, V., & Bratianu, C. (2012). Organizational culture modeling. Management & Marketing, 7(2), 257-276. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030262529?accountid=12085
Morris, J. T. (2009). The impact of authentic leadership and ethical organizational culture on auditor behavior. (University of San Diego). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 1-173. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305181022?accountid=12085. (305181022)
Roach, J. B. (1988). Organizational communication and organizational culture during an acquisition and merger. State University of New York at Buffalo). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 306-306 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/303625703?accountid=12085. (303625703).
Salas-Amaro, A. (2013). Using spiritual leadership to determine the fate of modern business organizations. International Journal of Business Research, 13(1), 107+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA327451819&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Sandra M. Sánchez-Cañizares, Miguel Ángel, A. M., & Tomás López-Guzmán. (2007). Organizational culture and intellectual capital: A new model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(3), 409-430. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930710774849
Tierney, W. G. (1985). The web of leadership (symbolic, organizational culture, Language/communication). Stanford University).ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 327-327 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/303390375?accountid=12085. (303390375).
