HRM On Culture
HRM On Culture
HRM On Culture
1. INTRODUCTION
Todays organization is predominantly dynamic as it poses large opportunities and challenges to
the corporate practitioners and policy makers. Understanding such dynamism is very crucial to
pursue the organizational strategic objectives.
There have been researches in literature to explore the effect of organizational culture on various
human resource development programmes of an organization. For example, scholars including
Hofstede, 1980; Ouchi, 1981; Hofstede and Bond, 1988, Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Magee, 2002,
claim that organizational culture help to provide opportunity and broad structure for the de-
velopment of human resources technical and behavioural skills in an organization. This makes
sense because good behavior is driven by ethical values. An organization can guide the conduct
of its employees by embedding ethical values in its culture. However, organizational excellences
could be varied since cultural traits could be source of competitive advantage through casual
ambiguity, (Barney, 1991; and Peters and Waterman, 1982). The world is changing rapidly and
the level of organizations is also changing due to technological advancements which have af-
fected their human resource developments programmes. Moreover, organizations differ in their
cultural content in terms of the relative ordering of beliefs, values and assumptions.
Organizational culture adapts overtime to cope with the dynamic changes and meet the vary-
ing demands of the organization in its quest for gaining competitive advantage in all its activi-
ties. Therefore, a supportive culture as noted by Ritchie, (2000) is considered as a motivational
instrument which promotes the organization to perform smoothly and ensure success in all its
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Contents of Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is conceptualized as shared beliefs and values within the organization
that helps to shape the behavior patterns of employees (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). Gordon and
Cummins (1989) define organization culture as the drive that recognizes the efforts and con-
tributions of the organizational members and provides holistic understanding of what and how
to be achieved, how goals are interrelated, and how each employee could attain goals. Hofstede
(1990) summarizes organization culture as collective process of the mind that differentiates
the members of one group from the other one. Thus, we can deduce from above definitions
that organizational culture could be the means of keeping employees in line and acclimatizing
them towards organizational objectives. Deal and Kennedy, (1982) recognizes the link between
culture and organizational excellent performances via its human resource development pro-
grammes. These cultural values and human resource development programmes are consistent
with organizational chosen strategies that led to successful organizations. The organizational
culture is outlined in Schein (1990) as overall phenomenon of the organization such as natural
settings, the rite and rituals, climate, values and programmes of the company e.g. performance
management, training and development, recruitment and selection, etc. According to Martins
and Terblanche (2003), culture is deeply associated with values and beliefs shared by person-
nel in an organization. Organizational culture relates the employees to Organizations values,
norms, stories, beliefs and principles and incorporates these assumptions into them as activity
and behavioural set of standards. Klein, (1996) positioned organizational culture as the core of
organizations activities which has aggregate impact on its overall effectiveness and the quality of
its product and services. Schein (2004) defined organizational culture as a dynamic force within
117
121
123
Organizational
Culture
Human
Resource
Development
Training & Performance
Development Management
4. DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Respondents Characteristics
As indicated in Tab 1, the sample size comprises of 57.8% males and 42.2% females, which is
evident that the representation of the male is higher than the female counterpart. Generally, the
greater percentage of the respondents fall within the age bracket of 26 35 years of age (51.0%),
followed by 18 25years of age with 30.0%; and the least in the age category is respondents
within the age bracket of 46 years and above. It is therefore evident that the respondents could
be considered as appropriate because the majority fall within the age bracket that are agile and
active and drives economy of any nation. In similar direction, 44.7% of the participants were
married; which is evident that they have been able to remain in their marriages despite all odds
and challenges. However, about 37.6% were single, while 12.7% were divorced.
The respondents could be classified as relatively experienced because 46.8% have worked be-
tween 6 10 years; while 17.7% have worked for eleven years and above. This could be as a result
of the age of the institutions, which falls between 5 10 years, it could also be attributed to the
high rate of turnover which is one of the characteristics of private sector of any economy.
Further, the 30% representing the age category (18 25years) of the respondents could be as
a result of the employment policy that exists among these private universities, which allows
reabsorbtion of their graduates as faculty members at early stage and groom them to maturity.
However, it is important to note that majority of the undergraduates were admitted between
the age 16 and 18, and complete their 4-year study within the age bracket of 20 22. These new
faculty members often refer to as Graduate Assistants begin their academic career early, and it
is a common practice among private universities in Nigeria.
125
Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 137 57.8%
Female 100 42.2%
Total: 237 100.0%
Age
18 25 years 71 30.0%
26 35 years 121 51.0%
36 45 years 28 11.8%
Above 46 years 17 7.2%
Total: 237 100.0%
Marital Status
Single 89 37.6%
Married 106 44.7%
Divorced 30 12.7%
Others 12 5.0%
Total: 237 100.0%
Work Experience
0 5 years 81 34.2%
6 10 years 111 46.8%
11 years & above 42 17.7%
Missing System 3 1.3%
Total: 237 100.0%
The results regression analysis conducted to test the research model between human resource
development and organizational culture is as shown in Tab. 3. The model explains the associa-
tion between organizational culture (value, belief, and practice) and human resource develop-
ment (recruitment and selection; training and development; compensation; and performance
appraisal). In comparing the contribution of each independent variable, as observed in Tab. 3,
under Beta column, recruitment process makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining
the dependent construct (organizational culture value, belief, and practice), which is repre-
sented with .284 beta coefficient. Followed by training programmes with .200 beta coefficient,
which could be interpreted as training programmes making 20.0% contribution to the depend-
ent construct. Looking at the column marked Sig., it is evident that recruitment process variable
(sig. = .000); and training programmes (sig. = 001) are making significant unique contribution to
the prediction of the study dependent construct. However, a close analysis of model parameters
indicated that two of the variables have close association with the organizational culture (belief,
value, and practice). It is however probable that given the organizational context of the study,
recruitment process, training and development, compensation management and performance
appraisal may have organizational culture (belief, value and practice) undertone, which may be
more appreciated by individuals who might have some similarities with the values, belief, and
practice of the organization. Further, the institutions studied must have made their recruitment
process and training and development aligned with the organizational culture. In addition, em-
ployment seekers are fully aware of their expectations right from the recruitment and selection
process, thereby have the right to accept or decline employment offer.
127
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients. T Sig
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.244 .405 3.074 .002
Recruitment Process .231 .057 .284 4.034 .000
Training programmes .200 .060 .200 3.353 .001
Job performance mgt .065 .059 .070 1.104 .271
Performance of employees .042 .074 .046 .564 .573
Pay structure -.068 .051 -.085 -1.318 .189
Compensation admin. -.052 .050 -.070 -1.043 .298
External competitiveness .130 .050 .179 2.610 .010
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational culture; R2 = .304; R= .551; F = 10.701; Sig = .000
References
1. Adeniji, A. A., & Osibanjo, A. O. (2012). Human Resource Management: Theory & Practice.
Lagos, Nigeria: Pumark Nigeria Limited.
2. Adeniji, A. A., Osibanjo, A. O., & Abiodun, A. J. (2013). Organizational Change and
Human Resource Management Interventions: An Investigation of the Nigerian Banking
Industry. Serbian Journal of Management, 8(2), 139-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/sjm8-3712
3. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can it be a Source of Sustained Competitive
Advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258317
4. Brooks, I. (2006). Organizational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organization. Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
5. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decision and
Organization Entry. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 67(3), 294-311.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081
6. Carr, M. J., Schmidt, W. T., Ford, A. M., & DeShon, D.J (2003). Job Satisfaction: A Meta-
Analysis of Stabilities. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 22(3), 483-504.
7. Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Life, Profits. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
8. Chartman, J. A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of
Person Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
9. Chenhall, R. H. (2005). Integrative Strategic Performance System, Strategic Alignment
of Manufacturing, Learning and Strategic Outcomes: An Exploratory Study. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30(5), 394-420.
10. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1994). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation
Systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-297.
11. Daft, R. L. (2000). Organization Theory and Design. USA: South-Western College Publishing,
Thompson Learning.
12. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
13. Feldman, M., & March, J. (1981). Information as Signal and Symbol. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26(2), 171-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392467
14. Gordon, G., & Cummins, W. (1979). Managing Management Climate. Toronto, Canada:
Lexington Books.
129
131
Contact information
Omotayo Adewale OSIBANJO (Ph.D)
Business Management Department, School of Business
College of Development Studies, Covenant University
Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria
Email: ade.osibanjo@covenantuniversity.edu.ng
133