UNIVERSITY OF NI

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
"ECONOMIC THEMES"
Year 50, No. 3, 2012, pp. 289-308
Address: Trg kralja Aleksandra Ujedinitelja 11, 18000 Ni
Phone: +381 18 528 624 Fax: +381 18 4523 268


THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIZONAL CULTURE
ON CONTROL OF BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
Neboja Janiijevi


Abstract: The paper explores the impact of organizational culture on control
of organization members behavior. Every organization must develop a
certain method of behavior control in order to provide coordinated and
effective collective action in accomplishing its goals. Organizational culture
with its assumptions, values and norms defines how an organization
understands the nature of human behavior in social groups, and thus a
suitable manner of control of this behavior. The paper uses Mintzbergs
classification of five methods of organizational behavior control which are
differentiated according to two basic criteria: the level of restrictiveness and
the level of formalization or personalization. On the other hand,
organizational culture classifications by Handy and Trompenaar each
recognize four types of culture, which can be differentiated according to two
criteria: distribution of power and orientation towards work or social
structure. Based on matching of the criteria for organizational culture types
differentiation and methods of behavior control, the hypotheses on causal
relations between them are established in the paper.
Keywords: organization, control, organizational culture, organizational behavior
Introduction
Organizational culture has a strong impact on organization and
management, which emerges from its nature and its content. Organizational culture
is defined as a system of assumptions, values, norms and attitudes, manifested
through symbols which the members of an organization have developed and
adopted through shared experience and which help them determine the meaning of
the world around them and how to behave in it (Janiijevi, 2011, 70).
Assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes that the members of an organization share
significantly shape their interpretative schemes. Through interpretative schemes the
members of an organization assign meanings to occurrences within and outside the
organization and understand the reality that surrounds them (Fiske, Taylor, 1991;

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics, jnebojsa@eunet.rs

UDC 005.32, review paper
Received: 31.07.2012. Accepted: 20.09.2012.
Neboja Janiijevi
290
Smircich, 1983). The behavior, actions, and interactions of the members of an
organization emerge from the meaning that the reality of that organization has for
them (Alvesson, 2002; Martin, 2002). Organizational culture is a form of collective
interpretative scheme shared by the members of an organization, due to which they
assign meanings to occurrences, people, and events within and outside of the
organization in a similar way and treat them similarly (Schein, 2004). Such a powerful
culture of an organization implies that all the members of the organization similarly
understand the organization, as well as a suitable way of its functioning, managing,
and changing. The character of different components of management and
organization, such as strategy, structure, leadership style, organizational learning,
system of rewards, and motivation, emerges precisely from the way in which
employees and management understand organizational reality and behave in it
(Wilderom C. et al., 2000). Thus, organizational culture, through its influence on the
interpretative schemes and behavior of the members of an organization, participates in
shaping other components of organization and management. Depending on the values
and norms contained by the organizational culture, top management selects strategy
and designs organizational structure, managers shape their leadership style, employees
define their motives and needs, and the human resource manager designs the
compensation system in a company. A concrete form of the impact of organizational
culture on an organization and management is observed in the fact that components of
an organization and management differ in different types of organizational culture. In
other words, different types of culture in organizations imply different strategies,
organizational structure models, compensation systems, leadership styles etc.
One of the important components of management that is impacted by
organizational culture is the method of control of the organization members behavior.
Organizational culture impacts the selection of adequate method of control of the
organization members behavior in the same way it impacts all other aspects of
management. Namely, cultural assumptions and values shared by the members of an
organization determine the way in which they will understand the organization itself,
and thereby the adequate way to control and direct the behavior in the organization.
What will be determined as a suitable, efficient, or useful way of control will depend
significantly on the shared assumptions and values of employees and managers built
in their interpretative schemes. Whether the control and coordination of individual
behavior of organization members are conducted restrictively or non-restrictively,
through direct or indirect communication, by focusing on tasks and structures or
people and their relations, will all to a great extent depend on how the leader and the
members of the organization see its functioning and a suitable, useful, or effective
way of control. This is the reason why different methods of control will be applied in
different organizational cultures.
The described impact of organizational culture on behavior control in an
organization is, however, too general in character and calls for operationalization
which would consist of generating and testing the hypothesis on the causal
relationship between certain types of organizational culture and certain methods of
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
291
control. In other words, it is necessary to prove that specific methods of behavior
control are applied or are more efficient in specific types of organizational cultures.
Such operationalization of relationships between organizational culture and methods
of control so far has not been dealt with in the literature. The purpose of this paper is
to fill this gap. The paper is explorative in character, which means that it will generate
hypotheses suitable for empiric testing. The structure of the paper is as follows: first,
behavior control will be defined, and classification through which methods of control
in organizations are differentiated will be presented. Then the classification through
which organizational culture types are differentiated will be presented. Finally, in the
last segment of the paper, based on the described classifications of culture and
methods of control, hypotheses will be established in which it will be stated that
implementation of a specific method of control is conditioned by a certain type of
organizational culture.
Methods of Control in an Organization
There are different methods of control in organizations. They are mostly
differentiated according to the object of control, so we may speak of performance
control, accounting or financial control, technical control, quality control, safety
control, ecological control etc. Each kind of control basically has the same objective
to ensure achieving of certain goals or to ensure that certain processes in the
organization are achieved according to some prearranged manner. For example,
company performance control by means of Balanced Scorecard examines whether
balanced goals are achieved in for areas (Kaplan, Norton, 2008). Control of the
organization members behavior is a kind of control in which the object of control is
individual behavior, i.e. actions and decisions by the members of the organization, and
the goal is to harmonize these decision and actions both one with another, as well as
with organizational goals.
Each organization has the need to control the behavior of its members. This
system should provide for the decisions and actions of the members of an organization
to be such that functioning of organization follows the planned course and streams
towards previously defined goals. Through the process of control, an organization
restricts the behavior of its members. The basic reason for this is that an organization
is in its essence a system of collective action through which mutual goals are
achieved. In order to achieve mutual goals through a collective action, individual
actions, i.e. behavior, of the members of an organization must be restricted, directed
and controlled. An organization must have a mechanism through which it would
decrease the degree of freedom of the employees choice in decision-making and
action taking in order to provide that these actions and decisions are mutually
harmonized and in order for them to jointly flow towards achieving previously
defined goals. Otherwise, without control, individual actions of the members of an
organization would be uncoordinated and would not be in the function of achieving
organizational but individual goals of the members of the organization. The discretion
Neboja Janiijevi
292
of the members of an organization regarding the selection of the manner in which they
will perform their tasks in the organization is to a smaller or greater extent restricted
by the method of control. This restraint on the freedom of decision-making and
behavior of organization members is inevitable in every organization. If every
member in an organization would have a complete freedom of behavior, a collective
action would then be impossible, and that would altogether mean the end of the
organization. Control of behavior of organization members represents a necessary
precondition for their coordination. Individual activities and work tasks of the
employees can mutually be coordinated into a single unique collective action only if
they are partially or completely anticipated which is accomplished precisely by the
method of control.
The method of behavior control is a necessary element of organizational
design, and the very process of control is one of the four primary tasks of management
(along with planning, leadership and organizing). System of control includes the
carriers of control and their tasks, means or mechanisms of control, and the
documents accompanying control. It is a system of management which the
management of an organization uses as a tool for managing the organization. The
system of control is the hard component of organization. It is more or less a
formalized system which is shaped by the decisions of the management of an
organization and is often covered by the required documents. The most frequently
quoted classification in the literature of methods or systems of control of organization
members behavior is the one given by Henry Mintzberg (Mintzberg, 1979). Within
his analysis of the manners in which organizations are structured, he differentiated
five basic mechanisms of behavior control on which he also based his organizational
models classification.
Standardization of Processes. This control mechanism implies that the
manner in which the members of an organization will do their job, i.e. perform each
work activity, is prescribed in advance. The means to achieve this are different formal
documents: standards, procedures, regulations and instructions. They standardize the
way in which each member of an organization performs the work tasks at his/her job.
Work processes standardization implies a very low degree of autonomy or discretion
of employees, and this is why it is a very restrictive mechanism of behavior control.
An employee must do only what is prescribed, in the way it is prescribed, at the
prescribed time and using the prescribed tools, which means that there is no room for
any kind of deviations. This is why this control mechanism is possible only in the case
of relatively simple and repetitive operations or work tasks, whereby the number of
exceptions is reduced to the smallest possible extent. Also, this control mechanism is
suitable for mass processes, when the number of job positions and operations is very
high. An example is the job position of a teller in a bank or an assembly line worker in
a car factory. Through standardization of their work activities, what they should do
and how they should do it is exactly defined. This is a very firm and reliable control
mechanism, since it leaves people little room for a free choice, and thereby also for
their mistakes. However, for the same reason, this control mechanism negatively
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
293
impacts the innovativeness and creativity in an organization. Processes
standardization is a centralized method of control since all the standards, procedures,
instructions and regulations are produced in a single place in an organization and then
imposed on the employees in operative sphere. Processes standardization is an ex ante
control since the way in which work should be conducted is determined in advance,
before the work starts. It is a depersonalized method of control since it is task oriented,
and not personality oriented, and since the behavior control comes down to
controlling the manner in which tasks are performed. Monitoring of the accomplished
in the process of control is conducted through impersonally set standards and
mechanisms. Processes standardization is a highly formalized method of control since
prescribing of the manner in which the work processes are conducted is done through
formal means, such as procedures and regulations. Restricting the behavior of
organization members in this way emerges from formal documents. Due to all above
said, work processes standardization is a control mechanism that bureaucratizes the
organization.
Standardization of outputs. Organizations turn to this mechanism of control
when work processes are too complex or variable and cannot be standardized, but the
outputs (results) of these processes can be prescribed. In this case, an employee is
given the freedom or discretion right to decide how he/she will perform the task, but
the output that he/she must achieve is specified or standardized in advance.
Standardization of outputs is a nonrestrictive method of control which provides a high
level of autonomy to the employees to define their actions. This method of control
also requires a relatively high degree of structure decentralization so the organization
members and their organizational units would have the freedom of choice of action in
achieving the prescribed outputs. A typical example of this control mechanism
implementation is divisional organization, in which the top of the company prescribes
only the level of performances that the divisions should achieve (e.g. percentage of
profit, level of sale, market share), while it leaves them the freedom to make their own
decisions about the way in which they will accomplish it. This mechanism of control
is also applied in project organizations, i.e. the organizations in which operative
processes are conducted mostly through projects realized by project teams. The
project results, time and tools are specified, and then it is left to the project team to
decide on the manner in which they would complete the project. This is, unlike
standardization of work processes, an ex post control since deviations from the
planned outputs are discovered and eliminated only after the work task is completed.
Performance standardization is, like work process standardization, a depersonalized
mechanism of control. The behavior of the members of an organization is controlled
through achieving the tasks set in advance. The focus is on the output, and not on the
people who achieve it. Standardization of outputs is also a formalized method of
control because performance standards that restrict the behavior of the employees are
formally prescribed through management decisions and formal documents.
Standardization of outputs is most often applied through business and operative plans
and budget.
Neboja Janiijevi
294
Standardization of knowledge and skills. This mechanism of employees
behavior control is applied in the situation when neither the manner of performing the
work tasks (process) nor the result (output) can be standardized. The only manner of
control in such a situation is the standardization of behavior inputs, and these are
knowledge, skills and ethic standards in performing of the tasks. The work process, as
well as its effects or outputs (results), can at least to some extent be controlled through
standardization of knowledge and skills necessary for performing of the work, as well
as through establishing professional norms and standards which those who perform
the work should comply with. This mechanism of control is used mainly for
performing of the so-called professional jobs, such as, for example, jobs of an
economic analyst in a company, doctor, lawyer, professor, researcher in a
development laboratory, and the like. By standardization of knowledge, skills and
standards that they put into performing of their job the work process, as well as its
effects, become significantly more predictable and controllable. Due to
standardization of professional knowledge, skills and behavior norms, it can be with
certainty anticipated what the doctor will do when he/she encounters a patient with the
flue or how the professor of economics will explain what is product cost price.
Standardization of knowledge and skills is usually conducted through a long-lasting
process of schooling of expertsprofessionals. Schooling is usually done outside the
organizations in which they work, i.e. in educational institutions. However, experts
acquire a significant part of the package of professional knowledge and standards in
the organizations in which they work. Namely, through the process of socialization
and learning from senior colleagues young experts expand, modify and improve the
package of knowledge, skills and norms their profession requires. This mechanism of
control provides the greatest degree of autonomy to an executive, which is only
logical having in mind the nature of jobs that this mechanism of control is used for.
This method of control is therefore nonrestrictive and gives a high degree of discretion
to the members of an organization regarding the manner in which they perform their
tasks. Standardization of knowledge seeks and correlates with decentralization in an
organization since it implies that the executives, who are at the same time experts
professionals, have the freedom to independently make decisions. On the other hand,
this mechanism of control is, unlike the previous two, personalized and informal. It is
people oriented, and not task oriented. It makes the person the center of attention, and
not his/her role or task. The degree of formalization of this control system is very low.
Socialization and learning of knowledge, skills and professional standards by the
newly admitted experts are usually the result of informal contacts with colleagues,
although some forms of introduction to work operations, instructing and training can
also be observed in companies. The low formalization of knowledge standardization
emerges from the fact that behavior of the members of an organization is not restricted
by some formal document, but by their professional knowledge, skills and ethics. Just
like standardization of work processes, this form of control is based on and ex ante
control, i.e. the tendency is to avoid deviations form the desired output, and not to
eliminate them after they have already appeared.
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
295
Direct supervision by the management. In this system, control is achieved by
the manager who, based on his/her position in the organizational structure, has the
authority over a certain number of subordinated employees. The manager supervises
the progress of the work process, decisions and actions of the employees, in particular
through immediate contact and communication with the subordinate who performs
his/her work tasks. The manager gives instructions to the subordinate regarding how,
when and what should be done and he/she immediately reacts if he/she notices
deviations with regard to his/her instructions. The method of control through direct
supervision has several control points in an organization; more specifically it has as
many control points as it has managers. But, even so, a significant disadvantage of this
method of control is the span of control. This method of control can be efficient only
if the managers do not have a too wide span of control, i.e. if the number of
subordinates under their control is not too large. This method of control is restrictive
and leaves little room for autonomy, i.e. it leaves little room for the employees to have
the freedom of choice regarding the manner in which they will perform their work
tasks. The manager most often defines methods of work, but also solves the problems
that emerge during the work process. The method of control through direct
supervision corresponds with centralization in decision-making in an organization,
since decisions about the manner of work are reached by the manager, and the
employees only execute them. Like standardization of processes, it may be used only
for relatively simple and repetitive work tasks. This is why this method of control is
the alternative to standardization of work processes, particularly when the
organization is small and young or when due to other reasons excessive formalization
is not desirable. This method of control is more flexible that standardization of
processes and allows somewhat greater degree of creativity and initiative. However, it
is also less effective and reliable than standardization of processes. Control through
direct supervision is personalized since its focus is the impact on people, and not on
tasks. The managers control the behavior of employees through direct impact on
them, and not through tasks. Although based on hierarchical superordination and
subordinacy, this method of control is significantly informal because the source of
restriction of organization members behavior is not a formal document but a
person, i.e. the supervising manager.
Direct interpersonal communication. Control can also be conducted
through a direct interpersonal communication of the employees, i.e. the members of
an organization. In this case, the employees who comprise one team control and
coordinate each other in direct interpersonal contact and thus coordinate their
activities and influence one another. Basically, direct interpersonal communication is
more a coordinative than it is a control mechanism. Its purpose is not to control the
behavior of organization members, but to coordinate individual actions and behaviors
of the members of an organization in order to achieve efficient collective action. But,
precisely this coordination of actions with the actions of other members of the team is
the source of control, i.e. the source of restriction of the team members behavior.
They are not entirely free regarding the choice of their actions since they are restricted
Neboja Janiijevi
296
by the need for their action to be coordinated with the actions of other team members.
This mechanism of control is very flexible, nonrestrictive and allows for the highest
degree of freedom to the employees. They are completely free and autonomous
regarding the selection of their behavior while performing the work tasks and
restricted only by the need to coordinate their behavior with behavior of the other
members of the team. Hence this mechanism of control provides the conditions for the
highest degree of creativity and flexibility in an organization. Due to a high autonomy
of the members of an organization it implies, interpersonal communication also
requires a high degree of decentralization of decision-making in an organization. Also,
it is suitable for performing of very complex tasks which cannot be in any way
coordinated and controlled from the outside. The main disadvantage of this
mechanism of control is that it is limited to control of a relatively small number of
employees. Direct interpersonal communication is simply not possible to apply in
coordinating and controlling a large number of people. The reason for this is the
limited capacity of people to receive, process and give information, which prevents
direct interpersonal communication of a large number of people at the same time.
Direct interpersonal communication is a personalized method of control oriented
towards people, and not towards tasks. It is also an informal method of control since
the source of restriction of the organization members behavior is not some formal
document, but other members of the team. In this respect, it is similar to direct
supervision by the management, with the difference being that the source of restriction
in direct supervision by the management is the supervising manager and the source of
restriction here are the colleagues in the team.
Although Mintzberg did not explicitly write about it, it is clear that the
described methods of control of organization members behavior can be differentiated
according to two criteria: the degree of restrictiveness or autonomy that the method of
control leaves to the employees with respect to selection of the way in which they will
perform their work tasks, as well as the degree of personalization and formalization of
control. According to the criteria of the degree of restrictiveness or autonomy that the
method of control leaves to the employees, we may distinguish restrictive and
nonrestrictive systems of control. Restrictive methods of control are the ones that
leave little room to the members of an organization with respect to selection of
method and manner of work and also imply a low degree of their discretion or
autonomy and impose a greater number of restrictions. In restrictive methods of
behavior control, the members of an organization have very little room for free
decision-making and taking actions. Restrictive methods of control are standardization
of processes and direct supervision by the management. Nonrestrictive methods of
control are the ones that impose smaller number of restrictions in organization
members behavior and which give them greater discretion and autonomy and leave
more room for selecting the manner of work. In nonrestrictive methods of behavior
control, the members of an organization have more room for free decision-making and
taking actions. Nonrestrictive methods of control are: standardization of knowledge,
standardization of outputs and direct interpersonal communication.
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
297
According to the second criterion, we distinguish between formalized and
depersonalized methods of control and personalized and lowly formalized methods
of control. Depersonalized and formalized methods of control are the ones which
restrict organization members behavior by means of formal documents, such as:
plans, standards, procedures, instructions etc. Standardization of processes and
standardization of outputs fall under this type of method of control. They control
peoples behavior through controlling the tasks that they should perform.
Personalized and lowly formalized methods of control are primarily focused on
people and their behavior, and are only secondarily focused on tasks they should
perform. The source of restriction of organization members behavior are not
formal documents but other people: managers, colleagues and the employees
themselves (their knowledge and ethics). Direct supervision, standardization of
knowledge and direct interpersonal communication are part of personalized and
lowly formalized methods of control. By combining the two criteria of
differentiation of methods of behavior control in an organization we may design
the following matrix:
Table 1: Types of Behavior Control in Organizations
Formalization,
personalization of control
Restrictiveness of control,
autonomy
Formalized, depersonalized
Non-formalized,
personalized
Low autonomy, restrictive
Standardization of
processes
Direct supervision
High autonomy, nonrestrictive Standardization of outputs
Standardization of
knowledge, Direct
interpersonal communication
The matrix shows all the differences between the described methods of
behavior control in a company. Standardization of processes is a formalized and
depersonalized method of control which is also highly restrictive and allows little
freedom to employees. Standardization of outputs is also formalized and
depersonalized method but, unlike standardization of processes, allows relatively
high autonomy to the members of an organization with respect to selection of the
method of work. Direct supervision is, like standardization of processes, a
restrictive method and allows relatively low autonomy to the employees, but unlike
standardization of processes it is a highly personalized and lowly formalized
method of control. Standardization of knowledge and interpersonal communication
are also personalized and lowly formalized methods but, unlike direct supervision,
they provide a high level of autonomy and are not restrictive.
The selection of an adequate method of behavior control represents a very
important decision by the company management. Inadequate method of control can
Neboja Janiijevi
298
not only decrease efficiency of the control process, but can also disturb relations
and atmosphere in an organization. Numerous factors influence the selection of the
method of control in a company. Certainly, the nature of the work being controlled
is the most important one among them. It was already noted that the complexity of
the work and its repetitiveness significantly narrow the possibility of the selection.
Complex and variable jobs and tasks may be controlled through standardization of
outputs and knowledge, while standardization of processes and direct supervision
may be used only in the case of simple and repetitive jobs. The size and age of a
company also have a strong impact on the selection of method of control, as well as
the organizational structure of the company. Thus, divisional and project structures
call for the application of standardization of outputs, while functional structure
implies standardization of processes and hierarchical control. Finally, a very
important factor of selection of the method of control is also a degree of education
and expertise of the employees. As a rule, standardization of outputs and
knowledge requires a higher degree of education and expertise.
In this paper, the hypothesis is established that organizational culture is one
of the factors in selecting the system of behavior control in an organization. The
prevailing assumptions, values and norms in a company significantly influence the
control system selection. For example, the selection between restrictive and
nonrestrictive methods of control depends on beliefs on human nature which are
the content of the given culture. A culture in which distrust of people prevails will
impact the application of restrictive methods of control leaving little room for
autonomy of the employees. On the other hand, a culture in which attitudes that
creative energy of people should be released prevail is a factor to the benefits of
selection of nonrestrictive methods of control, such as standardization of outputs
and knowledge. Also, beliefs regarding uncertainty and risk impact the selection
between restrictive and nonrestrictive methods of control. Higher tolerance of
uncertainty, changes and risks favors nonrestrictive systems of control, while
opposite attitudes lead to implementation of standardization of processes and direct
supervision, as well as restrictive methods of control. Selecting between
personalized and depersonalized methods of control depends on beliefs about the
nature of interpersonal relations in an organization. Cultures which assume that
every organization is a rational system for achieving of the specific goals, and that
interpersonal relations are always in the function of achieving of these goals,
favour depersonalized systems of control. Cultures which hold the assumption that
every organization is, above all, a social structure in which interpersonal relations
determine both the organizational goals and the ways in which they are achieved,
are the factor in favor of personalized methods of control selection the
standardization of knowledge and direct supervision.
The preceding analysis implicates that certain mechanisms of employees
behavior control will be more suitable and effective in certain organizational culture
types. In other words, the efficiency of the method of control will depend on the
extent in which this particular method of control is compatible with the culture of the
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
299
organization in which it is being implemented. In order to determine which concrete
mechanisms of control are suitable and effective in specific types of culture we must
identify organizational culture types, determine the criteria of their differentiation,
relate these criteria with the criteria of methods of control differentiation, and then
relate the types of culture with the methods of control they imply.
Types of Organizational Culture
The next step in the analysis of the impact of organizational culture on the
method of control selection is organizational culture type classification. Numerous
and diverse organizational culture type classifications can be found in literature
(Cameron, Quinn, 2011; Deal, Kennedy, 2011; Balthazard, Cooke, Potter, 2006;
Denison, Mishra, 1995; OReilly, Chatman, Caldwell, 1991). However, for the
analysis of the impact of organizational culture on behavior control in
organizations two organizational culture classifications by two authors, Charles
Handy (Handy, 1979) and Fons Trompenaars (Trompenaars, 1994), are very
helpful. Handys classification recognizes power culture, task culture, role culture,
and people culture. Trompenaars classification recognizes: family culture, Eiffel
Tower culture, guided missile culture, and incubator culture. These two
classifications use the same criteria for differentiation of organizational culture
type; hence the recognized types are similar.
Power or family culture is authoritarian. In this type of organizational
culture the metaphor for organization is the patriarchal family with a powerful
father figure at the head. Just as all the power in the family is concentrated in the
hands of the pater familias, likewise an organization with this type of culture is
highly centralized. Just as interpersonal relations are the most important aspect of
the family, similarly in this type of culture social structure and interpersonal
relations will dominate over work structure and tasks. Therefore the degree of
formalization of relations in an organization with this type of culture is low, so the
culture is informal and without developed structures, systems, or procedures.
Implementation of the leaders decisions is conducted through his/her direct and
personal influence on the organization members. Power or family culture implies
high dependence of organization members on their leader, who makes all the
decisions and coordinates and controls all the processes in the organization. The
source of the leaders power is control over resources or charisma, while the
organization members draw their power from closeness to the leader. This type of
culture implies a high degree of flexibility, because the members of the
organization readily accept all the changes coming from the leader.
Role or Eiffel Tower culture is bureaucratic. In this type of culture
rationality is highly valued, and it therefore has a high level of standardization,
formalization, and specialization, as well as depersonalization. In this type of
culture the organization is understood as a machine in which every part must
Neboja Janiijevi
300
perform its role in a prescribed manner. Formal rules, procedures, systems, and
structures are highly respected, and therefore are highly developed and have a
critical role in the functioning of the organization. This is why an organization with
role or Eiffel Tower culture functions through dependence on work structure and
division of labour and tasks, while relations between people are of secondary
importance. Role or Eiffel Tower culture presumes unequal distribution of power
in an organization, because the rules the members are obliged to obey are
prescribed from the top. This type of culture implies rigidity and resistance to
change, since change disturbs the harmonious functioning of the machine.
Task or guided missile culture is a culture in which organization is a
tool for problem solving and accomplishing tasks. Results, competency, creativity,
achievement, and change are highly valued. Since tasks are often very complex
entire teams are needed to solve them: therefore teamwork is also highly valued.
Complex problems solving is entrusted to professionals who have the necessary
knowledge and skills. But in order to use all the potential of the professionals
knowledge and competency they must have autonomy in their work. Therefore in
this type of culture it is presumed that the power in an organization must always be
distributed relatively evenly among its members. Since an organization with task or
guided missile culture is focused on tasks, relationships and social structure are
of secondary importance.
People or incubator culture values individualism and individual growth
the most. The organization is understood as an incubator of ideas and people.
Individual goals are more important than organizational goals to the members of an
organization, and hence organization is regarded merely as a suitable context for
achievement of personal goals. This context may be more or less adjusted to the
individual needs of the members of an organization and this is the basic criterion
according for valuation of the quality of the organization. The consequence is that
egalitarianism in distribution of power is preferred in organizations with this type
of culture. The organization members, most often experts, participate in
organizational decision-making in order to provide conditions for their
development. Since everything is observed through the prism of organization
members personal development, this type of culture is focused on social structure
and interpersonal relations, while work structure is secondary.
The four described types of organizational culture differ in many elements.
However, key differences emerge between organizational culture types in both
Handys and Trompenaars classifications, based on two criteria. The first criterion
is the distribution of power that is implied by a specific type of organizational
culture in an organization. Distribution of power among members of a social group,
such as an organization, is one of the fundamental issues that every group must
solve in order to be able to function. Resolution of this issue is then built into the
culture of the group in the form of cultural assumptions (Hofstede, 2001).
According to this criterion, organizational cultures which imply authoritarian or
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
301
hierarchical distribution of power and organizational cultures which imply
egalitarian or equal distribution of power can be distinguished. These differences in
organizational culture occur due to differences in the assumptions which they
contain and which Hofstede recognized, at the level of national culture, as power
distance (Hofstede, 2001). In authoritarian or hierarchical cultures the basic
assumption is that unequal distribution of power in social systems is inevitable,
useful, and even necessary, and that it is the only way that the system can function.
Such are Handys power and role culture and Trompenaars family and Eiffel
Tower culture. In egalitarian cultures the assumption prevails that social systems,
such as organizations, need as equal a distribution of power as possible, and that
such a distribution of power will provide more efficient functioning of social
systems and achieving of goals. Such are Handys task and people culture and
Trompenaars incubator and guided missile culture.
Table 2: Types of Organizational Cultures
Framework of
collective actions
Power distribution
Work structure, tasks

Social structure, relations

Authoritarian,
hierarchical distribution
of power
Role culture (H)
Eiffel Tower culture (T)
Power culture (H)
Family culture (T)
Egalitarian distribution of
power
Task culture (H)
Guided missile culture(T)
People culture (H)
Incubator culture (T)
The second criterion according to which these organizational culture types
differ in both classifications is the framework of collective action through which
the organization achieves its goals. The framework of collective action is also a
fundamental issue that a social group, such as an organization, must solve in order
to be able to function normally. Every organization is a social system created in
order to achieve its stakeholders goals through collective action. An organization,
however, has its work component and its social component, and therefore the
following issue must be solved: which of these components is the primary
framework of collective action through which goals are achieved? Are the goals of
an organization achieved through collective action within the framework of
structures, systems, and procedures, or are they achieved within the framework of
interpersonal relations? According to the criterion of a suitable framework for
collective action in organizations, we distinguish organizational cultures which
imply collective action through work structures and tasks, and cultures which
imply collective action through social structure and relations. Power culture, family
culture, and people and incubator culture all imply supremacy of social over work
Neboja Janiijevi
302
structure, as well as supremacy of relationships over tasks: the most important
means of achieving the goals are people and their relationships. In role culture and
Eiffel Tower culture, and in task culture and guided missile culture, the goals
of the organization are achieved by depending primarily on work structure and
tasks, while people and their relationships are of secondary importance.
Combining both criteria for differentiation of organizational cultures we
are able to construct the following matrix:
Correspondence of Organizational Culture Type
and Method of Control in an Organization
The presented classification of organizational cultures and methods of
behavior control shows a high degree of correspondence between the criteria used
to differentiate them. The assumptions regarding suitable distribution of power in
an organization, by which organizational cultures are differentiated, are obviously
connected with the degree of restrictiveness or autonomy which differentiates
methods of control. Also, the assumptions regarding the suitable framework of
collective action in an organization, by which organizational cultures are
differentiated, are obviously connected with the degree of formalization and
personalization in the methods of control. This enables us to establish hypotheses
about the causal relationships between certain organizational culture types and
certain methods of control.
In authoritarian or hierarchical cultures, in which assumption of unequal
distribution of power prevails, the possible, probable, and efficient methods of
control are restrictive methods which enable low discretion or autonomy of the
members of an organization. Centralization of power implies a strict control of the
organization from one center, most often from the top of the organization. This in
turn implies that the employees at the lower hierarchical levels cannot be entrusted
with autonomy and discretion of behavior. Thus, Handys power and role culture,
as well as Trompenaars family and Eiffel Tower culture will both imply the
implementation of standardization of processes or direct supervision by the
management as restrictive mechanisms of control. This is why we may establish
the following hypothesis:
H
1
: Organizational cultures which assume authoritarian or hierarchical distribution
of power imply the implementation of restrictive methods of behavior control in an
organization.
In egalitarian cultures, which assume the need for more equal distribution
of power, the possible, probable, and efficient methods of control are methods
which enable a high degree of autonomy or discretion in organization members
behavior. In these cultures the organization members expect to play an active role
in everyday functioning of the organization, whereby the autonomy in performing
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
303
of tasks is the necessary prerequisite. Harmony in distribution of power in an
organization precisely implies a higher autonomy and influence of organization
members on works processes and performing of tasks. Thus, Handys task and
support culture, as well as Trompenaars guided missile and incubator culture
will both lead to the implementation of standardization of knowledge, interpersonal
communication and standardization of output as nonrestrictive methods of control.
Therefore we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
2
: Organizational cultures which assume egalitarian distribution of power imply the
implementation of nonrestrictive methods of behavior control in an organization.
In cultures in which problem solving and achievement of goals is
accomplished primarily through work or formal structure, the possible, probable,
and efficient methods of control will be formalized and depersonalized methods of
behavior control. Cultures oriented towards work structure and tasks will imply the
use of formalized and depersonalized methods of control in which control is
achieved by impact on the tasks, and not directly on people. This practically means
that Handys role and task culture, as well as Trompenaars Eiffel Tower and
guided missile culture will imply the implementation of standardization of
processes or outputs. Therefore we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
3
: Organizational cultures oriented towards work structure and tasks imply the
implementation of formalized and depersonalized methods of behavior control in an
organization.
In cultures where problem solving and the achievement of organizational
goals is accomplished primarily through social structure and relations, the possible,
probable, and efficient methods of control will be those in which the primary tool of
control is precisely this social structure and relations. Cultures predominantly
orientated towards social structure and relations will imply the implementation of
personalized and lowly formalized methods of control in which control is achieved
through a direct influence on people, and not on tasks. This means that Handys power
and people culture, as well as Trompenaars family and incubator culture will imply
the implementation of direct supervision, standardization of knowledge or
interpersonal communication. Therefore we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
4
: Organizational cultures oriented towards social structure and tasks imply the
implementation of lowly formalized and personalized methods of behavior control in
an organization.
Based on compliance of the basic criteria for differentiation of
organizational cultures and methods of control we can construct the following
matrix, from which emerge hypotheses on the direct causal relations between
certain organizational culture types, and suitable control systems in these cultures.

Neboja Janiijevi
304
Table 3: Alignment of Organizational Cultures and Behavioral Control Types
Framework of collective
action / control tool

Power distribution
/restrictiveness
Cultures oriented toward and
control achieved through
work structure and tasks
Cultures oriented toward and
control achieved through social
structure and relations
Authoritarian,
hierarchical cultures

Restrictive control
methods
Role culture (H)
Eiffel Tower culture (T)

Standardization of processes
Power culture (H)
Family culture (T)

Direct supervision
Egalitarian cultures


Non restrictive methods
Task culture (H)
Guided missile culture (T)

Standardization of outputs
People culture (H)
Incubator culture (T)
Standardization of knowledge
Direct interpersonal
communication
The presence of role or Eiffel Tower culture in an organization implies
the implementation of standardization of processes as the method of control of
organization members behavior. There is a high degree of compliance between the
assumptions of this type of organizational culture and the assumption underlying
standardization of processes. Both role culture and Eiffel Tower culture assume
that an organization is a rational instrument for achieving goals, which basically
underlies standardization of processes as a control mechanism. Since the rationality
of all processes in an organization is assumed in this type of culture, it is only
natural that control of these processes is achieved through a rational, formalized
and depersonalized system. Role and Eiffel Tower culture assume the necessity
of unequal distribution of power in an organization, which is also the condition for
the implementation of standardization of processes in which the members of an
organization have very low degree of autonomy and discretion with respect to the
selection of methods, manners and tools for performing of work tasks. The
assumption of rationality in role culture and Eiffel Tower culture also implies
their focus on work component and tasks. Since work component of the
organization and tasks are the fundamental object of control in standardization of
processes, it is clear that this method of behavior control fits this organizational
culture type. This is why we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
5
: Role culture and Eiffel Tower culture imply the implementation of
standardization of processes as the method of behavior control in an organization.
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
305
The basic assumption in power culture and family culture is that an
organization is an instrument in the leaders hands. There is also the assumption
that the leader, or the head of the family, should concentrate all the power in the
organization, while the rest of the members of organization, or members of the
family, should obey. Starting from such assumptions, the control of organization
members behavior can only be accomplished through implementation of direct
supervision by the leader or other managers. Since the metaphor of this type of
culture is a family with a strong father figure at the head, it is clear that in this
culture everything will depend on the leader of the organization. Hence, its
members expect the leader to directly control the behavior of all the members of
the organization by personally supervising them. Compatible with the family
metaphor is the assumption of the need for authoritarian or hierarchical distribution
of power in the organization. It is this assumption that implies the implementation
of direct supervision by the management as a restrictive method of control which
offers low autonomy to the members of an organization. The metaphor of the
organization as a family in this type of culture also leads to orientation towards
social structure and relations. Just as interpersonal relations, and not tasks, are
primary in a family, likewise social structure and relations are the key component
in organizations with power culture and family culture. Therefore, this type of
culture is compatible with direct supervision by the management as a method of
control, since it implies that control is achieved through people and not through
tasks. This is why we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
6
: Power culture and family culture imply the implementation of direct
supervision as the method of behavior control in an organization.
Task culture and guided missile culture contain assumptions and beliefs
which direct managers and employees to understand the organization as a means
for problem solving and task accomplishment. In this type of culture the members
of the organization value highly individual accomplishment, results, and creativity.
Therefore the most suitable method of control in organizations with task and
guided missile culture is standardization of outputs which starts from the control
of the output (results). Task culture and guided missile culture assume the need
for egalitarian distribution of power in which all the members of an organization
impact on the functioning of organization. This type of culture creates the
conditions for standardization of output because this method of control implies
active role of the members of an organization, their high autonomy and discretion
regarding the selection the suitable manner of work. Task culture and guided
missile culture impose a focus on tasks and work structure on the members of an
organization, which complies with the implementation of standardization of output
since through the implementation of this method the control is conducted precisely
through controlling tasks and outputs. Therefore a system of standardization of
output seeks conditions which are enabled by task culture and guided missile
culture: a high level of autonomy for the organization members and their focus on
tasks. This is why we may establish the following hypothesis:
Neboja Janiijevi
306
H
7
: Task culture and guided missile culture imply implementation of
standardization of output as the method of behavior control in an organization.
People culture and incubator culture assume the egalitarian distribution of
power in an organization, and also an orientation towards social structure and
relationships, which implies the application of direct interpersonal communication
or standardization of knowledge as a method of control of organization members
behavior. These two mechanisms of control imply that it is conducted through the
influence on people either through direct communication with them or through
shaping of their knowledge, skills, ethic norms etc. This is why these methods of
control can be efficiently implemented only in organizations in which social
structure and interpersonal relations between organization members are highly
valued, which is precisely the characteristic of people and incubator culture. Since
standardization of knowledge and direct interpersonal communication cannot be
implemented without the active involvement and a high degree of participation of
the members of an organization, the application of these two control mechanisms is
possible only in cultures with egalitarian distribution of power, such as in people
and incubator culture. Therefore we may establish the following hypothesis:
H
8
: People culture and incubator culture imply the implementation of direct
interpersonal communication and standardization of knowledge as the method of
behavior control in an organization.
Implications and Limitations
This paper has several significant theoretical and practical implications.
The most important theoretical implication is the usefulness of further research into
relations between organizational culture and behavior control in organizations. The
paper has shown that there is a theoretical basis for the assumption that
organizational culture is one of the factors in selection of method of control in an
organization. Now it is necessary to empirically test this assumption by testing the
hypotheses generated in this paper. This paper also implies the need to expand
research into the impact of organizational culture to other aspects of control, such
as motivation and other reactions of the members of an organization, flexibility of
the method of control etc. It is also necessary to explore whether the organizational
culture impacts the control systems efficiency? From this paper an assumption also
emerges that there may be a feedback effect of the method of behavior control on
organizational culture. Can the long-lasting application of a certain method of
behavior control influence the assumptions, values and norms of the employees,
and thereby the organizational culture as well, and if so, how? Finally, the paper
has pointed out the need to explore the impact of organizational culture on other
elements of organization and management, such as leadership style, organizational
structure, organizational learning, motivation, and reward system. Practical
implication of this paper is that the company management can be recommended to,
The Impact of Organizatizonal Culture on Control of Behavior in Organizations
307
during designing of method of control, choose the method of control which is
compatible with the culture of their organization. This will indeed contribute to the
efficiency and success of control.
This paper also has significant limitations. The first and foremost limitation
is in the very nature of this paper, which is explorative and theoretical. The paper has
resulted in hypotheses regarding the relations between organizational culture and
methods of control which are yet to be empirically proven. Without empirical testing
the findings of this paper are not entirely valid. Also, the paper is limited to
investigating organizational culture impact on just one aspect of control in an
organization control of behavior of the members of an organization. It does not
examine the impact of culture on other aspects of control, such as performance
control, which would complete the picture of the impact of organizational culture
of control in an organization. Finally, the limitation of this paper is the exclusive
reliance on just one classification of methods of control and two similar
organizational culture types classifications. Given the abundance of classifications
of both methods of control and organizational culture, it is possible that different
results would have been obtained had those other classifications been used.
References
1. Alvesson, M. (2002) Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage
2. Balthazard P. et al. (2006) Dysfunctional Culture, Dysfunctional Organization: Capturing
the Behavioral Norms that Form Organizational Culture and Drive PerformanceJournal
of Managerial Psychology, 21 (8): 709-732.
3. Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E. (2011) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
The competing vales framework. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.
4. Deal T., Kennedy A. (2011) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life. New York: Perseus Books Publishing.
5. Denison, D. R., Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness Organization Science, 6: 204223.
6. Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S.E., (1991) Social cognition.. New York: McGraw Hill.
7. Handy, C. (1979) Gods of Management. London: Pan.
8. Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures Consequences, Thousand Ouks, CA: Sage Publications
9. Janiijevi N. (2011) Methodological Approaches in The Research of Organizational
Culture. Economic Annals, LVI (189): 69 -100.
10. Kaplan,R., & Norton, D. (2008). The Execution Premium. Boston. Harvard Business
Press.
11. Martin, J. (2002) Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. London: Sage.
12. Mintzberg H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
13. OReally C.A., Chatman J.A., Caldwell D.F. (1991) People and Organizational Culture:
A Profile Comparation Approach to Assessing Person Organization Fit. Academy of
Management Journal, (34): 487 516.
14. Schein E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
15. Trompenaars F. (1994) Riding Waves of Culture. New York: Irwin.
Neboja Janiijevi
308
16. Smircich L. (1983) Organizations as shared meanings, in L. Pondy, P. Frost, G, Morgan,
T. Dandridge (eds) Organizational symbolism, (pp 55 65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
17. Wilderom C. et al. (2000) Organizational Culture as a Predictor of Organizational
Performance in N. Ashkanasy et al. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Culture &
Climate. (pp 193-209). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
UTICAJ ORGANIZACIONE KULTURE
NA KONTROLU PONAANJA U ORGANIZACIJAMA
Rezime: U radu se istrauje uticaj organizacione kulture na kontrolu
ponaanja lanova organizacije. Svaka organizacija mora da razvije odreeni
metod kontrole ponaanja lanova kako bi obezbedila koordiniranu i efikasnu
kolektivnu akciju u ostvarivanju svojih ciljeva. Organizaciona kultura svojim
pretpostavkama, vrednostima i normama opredeljuje nain na koji se u
organizaciji razume priroda ljudskog ponaanja u socijalnim grupama, pa
tako i pogodnog naina kontrole tog ponaanja. U radu se koristi
Mincbergova (Mintzberg) klasifikacija pet metoda kontrola ponaanja u
organizacijama koji se diferecniraju po dva osnovna kriterijuma: nivo
restriktivnosti i nivo formalizacije odnosno personalizacije. S druge strane,
klasifikacije organizacionih kultura autora Hendija (Handy) i Trompenara
(Trompenaar) prepoznaju po 4 tipa kultura koji se mogu izdiferencirati na po
osnovu dva kriterijuma: distribucija moi i orijentaicja na radnu ili socijalnu
strukturu. Na osnovu slaganja kriterijuma diferenciranja tipova
organizacionih kultura i metoda kontrole ponaanja u radu se postavljaju
hipoteze o uzrono-posledinim relacijama izmeu njih.
Kljune rei: organizacija, kontrola, organizaciona kultura, organizaciono
ponaanje

Copyright of Economic Themes is the property of Faculty of Economics Nis and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.