10 angela rogojanu

8/13/2019 10 Angela Rogojanu

1/14


2/14

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 3/2009

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 3/2009

138

n prezent, cteva studii realizate pentrumai multe tipuri de industrie au evideniatmodul n care schimbarea influeneaz mediulde afaceri ncepnd de la concureni ajungnd

n interiorul companiilor. Trecerea din ultimiiani printr-un flux de scandaluri corporative, deeecuri spectaculoase ale unor companii caEnron, Worldcom, Sunbeam i ArthurAndersen, precum i de creteri n cazul unorcompanii, precum Lucent Technologies,Cambridge Parteneri Tehnologie, CrispyCrme, TYCO, Global Crossing, CrayComputer i Compaq, au demonstrat faptul cn prezent cultura corporativar trebui sse aflen centrul ateniei mediului de afaceri.

Putem observa c, la nivel de companie,angajamentul i loialitatea angajatului fa deaceasta ncep sscadn mai puin ase luni dela data de angajrii, iar dup o perioad deaproximativ doi ani, muli dintre angajai nceps ia n considerare schimbarea locului demunc. Pentru a se diferentia de competitoriilor, companiile trebuie s utilizeze o nou

prghie drept armsecret: cultura corporativ,vzut de muli economiti drept un ultimavantaj competitiv n mediul de afaceri.

Pornind de la faptul demonstrat conformcruia cultura corporativ influeneaz

principiile respectate de angajai, performana,absenteismul, sigurana, modul de recrutare,calitatea produselor i serviciilor, gradul desatisfacie a clienilor i nivelul profiturilor,aceasta poate fi considerat drept un factordecisiv care contribuie la atingerea unui naltnivel de performan a forei de munc i caredeterminsuccesul sau eecul firmei pe pia.Prin crearea unui mediu n care oamenii sunt

preuii i recompensai, compania poate obineun avantaj competitiv semnificativ i i poatedezvolta un colectiv armonios, format dinangajai competeni i, mai ales, loiali.

2. Ce este cultura corporativ?

Nu exist o singur definiie pentrucultura corporativ. Subiectul a fost studiat dinmultiple puncte de vedere, pornind de la

discipline cum ar fi antropologia i sociologia,

business environment starting fromcompetition and going inside the companies.With the unending stream of corporatescandals in the last years, the spectacular

failures of such blue-chip companies asEnron, WorldCom, Sunbeam, and ArthurAndersen, as well as the implosion of manyformer hyper growth companies, such asLucent Technologies, Cambridge TechnologyPartners, Crispy Crme, Tyco, GlobalCrossing, Cray Computer, and Compaq,corporate culture is nowadays the focus ofattention in the business media and is a topicof discussion in corporate boardrooms.

We can see that at the company level,

engagement begins to decline in as little assix months after employees are hired, and atthe two-year mark, many employees begin toconsider going elsewhere, further raising thestakes when competing for talent. Todifferentiate themselves from theircompetitors, companies need to leveragetheir secret weapon: corporate culture, aweapon that is seen by many economists asan ultimate competitive advantage in the

business environment.

Considering corporate culture hasbeen demonstrated to affect outcomes asdiverse as employee morale, performance,absenteeism, safety, recruiting, retention,quality of products or services, customersatisfaction and profits, a well-definedcorporate culture can be the ultimatecontributor to a high-performing and highlyengaged workforce, which is capable ofdetermining the success of the company onthe market.

By creating an environment inwhich people are valued, developed andrewarded, companies gain a significantcompetitive advantage and can begin to builda stronger, more loyal and more productiveworkforce.

2. What is the corporate culture?

There is no single definition for

corporate culture. The topic has been studied


3/14



139

i ajungnd la disciplinele care studiazcomportamentul organizaional, managementuli comunicarea organizaional. nelegereaconceptului trebuie sporneascde la rspunsul

ce se oferla ntrebarea: De ce companiile aunevoie de o cultur corporativ?" Unii dintrespecialitii n domeniu susin cmotivul pentrucare o companie are nevoie de o culturacorporativ se bazeaz pe faptul c aceastareprezintun stil de via, conferind companiei,n acelai timp, personalitate i identitate.

innd cont de importana pe care o arecultura corporativ n prezent, n special ncontextul unei concurene din ce n ce maiacerbe, ce se manifestpe tot mai multe piee,

considerm ceste necesar s se stabileasc nprimul rnd ce este cultura corporativ. Astfel,este necesardefinirea conceptului. Mai jos suntenumerate cteva definiii: Potrivit lui Donald C. Langevoort, cultura

corporativeste un mijloc de comunicare ide coordonare n organizaii, reducndincertitudinile, rezolvnd ambiguitile, icompensnd costurile de agenie.(Langevoort, 2006)Langevoort adapteaz la sensul sociologic

conceptul de cultura corporativprezentndu-l drept un mijloc folositorpentru:

coordonarea percepiei individuale amembrilor organizaiei, atunci cnd estenecesaro aciune colectiv;

evitarea incertitudinii i ambiguitii cauzatede reaciile imprevizibile ale altor membri aiorganizaiei;

inducerea motivrii i garantarea loialitiifade identitatea i activitatea companiei.

H. Becker i B. Geer au afirmat c putemdefini cultura corporativ drept "un set de

principii ce stau la baza nelegerii moduluin care este organizat activitatea, ...".(Becker i Geer, 1960)

Potrivit lui Y. Allaire i lui M. Firsirotu,cultura corporativ este "un sistem decunotine, de standarde de percepere,credin, evaluare i aciune. . . care servescla relaionarea comunitilor cu elementele

caracteristice mediului n care activeaz.

from a variety of perspectives ranging fromdisciplines such as anthropology andsociology, to the applied disciplines oforganizational behavior, management and

organizational communication. The studymust begin with the answer to the question:Why do companies need a corporateculture? Some of the specialist in this fieldsay that the reason of the companys need ofa corporate culture is that it represents a lifestyle. It confers at the same time personalityand identity to a company.

Taking into account the importance ofthe corporate culture nowadays, especially inthe context of the growing competition in

many markets, we consider that it isnecessary first to establish what corporateculture represents.Some of the definitions are listed below:

According to Donald C. Langevoort,corporate culture is a means ofcommunication and coordination inorganizations that, as such, reducesuncertainties, resolves ambiguities, andcan offset agency costs.(Langevoort,2006)

Langevoort adapts the sociological termsense making to rational-choice analysis,by reading corporate culture as a device:

to coordinate the perceptions ofindividual organization members whencollective action is required;

to avoid uncertainty and ambiguitycaused by not knowing the reactions ofother organization members;

to induce aligned motivations andemotions as often expressed byorganizational /corporate identity or firmloyalty.H. Becker and B. Geer said that thecorporate culture is a set of commonunderstandings around which action isorganized, finding expression inlanguage whose nuances are peculiar tothe group.(Becker and Geer, 1960)According to Y. Allaire and M. Firsirotu,the corporate culture is a system of

knowledge, of standards for perceiving,


4/14


5/14



141

culturii corporatiste. Astfel, putem concluzionaclucrrile dedicate studiului acestui concept aususinut c este, de fapt, rezultatulcoordonrii(Kreps, 1990), cunoaterii

mprtite(Cremer, 1993), echilibruluiasimetric de pe pia(Hermalin, 1994) saudiferenelor existente n cazul condiiilor iniialece au stat la baza activitii companiilor(Rob iZemsky, 2002).

3. Cultura corporativi concurena

Cnd vorbim despre concuren, trebuiesne punem urmtoarea ntrebare: "Ce elementface diferena ntre o companie i concurenii

si?" Produsele oferite pe pia? Tehnologiafolosit? Ambele pot fi considerate elementeeseniale, dar teoriile convenionale afirm cadevratul avantaj competitiv de duratpe careo companie l poate avea, constn oameni. Este

binecunoscut faptul c leadership-ul, culturacorporativ, precum i angajamentul sunt n

prezent aspecte critice n vederea obinerii uneibune cote de pia. Muli economiti spun c"ocultur corporativ ctigtoare nvingeconcurena" i co companie trebuie saplice o

filozofie competitiv. Filozofia competitiveste descrisde ctre Sun Tzu drept "Calea". nafaceri, aceasta se numete "cultura corporativctigtoare". Prin urmare, un element de baz

pentru concurent rmne aplicarea unei filosofiicompetitive. O filosofie clar face mai uor

procesul de luare a deciziilor. Ea ghideaz totceea ce firma face pe pia, n scopul nvingeriiconcurenilor. Muli spun cn afaceri nimic nueste mai important dect un mod bun degandire. Un concurent cu o filozofie puterniceste un concurent greu de nvins. Majoritatea

persoanelor (i, prin urmare, i cele mai multecompanii care le angajeaz) joac pentru actiga. Pentru a nu pierde, orice companietrebuie s cunoasc principalele semne careanunpierderea cotei de pia, perceperea uneiimagini negative a companiei, precum i

pierderea respectului.Economitii au identificat de-a lungul

timpului nou semne care ajut la identificarea

unei organizaii sortite eecului

without the conscious knowledge of themembership. Those with sufficientexperience to understand this deepestlevel of organizational culture usually

become acclimatized to its attributes overtime, thus reinforcing the invisibility oftheir existence.

After seeing different definitions ofcorporate culture, we can conclude that

previous papers have argued that differentcorporate cultures are the result ofcoordination (Kreps, 1990), sharedknowledge (Cremer, 1993), asymmetricequilibrium in the product market (Hermalin,1994), or differences in firms' initial

conditions (Rob and Zemsky, 2002).

3. Corporate culture and competition

When we speak about competition, wehave to put ourselves this question: "Whatmakes a company different from itscompetitors?" The products offered on themarket? The technology used? Both may betrue, but current conventional wisdom statesthat the only truly sustainable competitive

advantage a company may have is its people.This means that culture, leadership, andcommitment are now critical to obtain a goodmarket share. Many economists say that awinning culture beats competition and that acompany has to apply a competitive

philosophy. Competitive philosophy isdescribed by Sun Tzu as "The Way" or "ThePath." In business, it is called "winningcorporate culture". The core of a competitoris his competitive philosophy. A clear

philosophy makes decision-making easier. Itguides everything else firms do on the marketin order to defeat their competitors. Nothingis as important as having the right way ofthinking. A competitor with a strong

philosophy is a strong competitor. In fact,most people (and, therefore, most companiesthat employ them) play not to lose. In ordernot to lose, any company should know whatthe signs of losing market share, image and

respect are.


6/14



142

(http://www.1000advices.com):Viziunea fuzzy: viziunea i misiuneacorporativ nu inspir oamenii; lipsa dealiniere strategic; oamenii nu tiu ncotro se

ndreapt organizaia i ce ncerc srealizeze n viitor.Lipsa abilitilor de leadership: teama deschimbare; liderii duc lips de spiritantreprenorial; managementul este fie preadur, fie prea neimplicat; managerii nu sunti lideri, ei doar administreaz imanageriaz; program prost de conducere.Cultura descurajant: nu exist valoricomune; lips de ncredere; cultur avinoviei; concentrarea pe probleme, nu pe

anse; oamenii nu se simt bine la locul demunc; eecurile nu sunt tolerate; oameniii pierd ncrederea n liderii lor i n sistem.Birocraia: structuri organizatorice

birocratice cu prea multe nivele; barierenumeroase n relaia manaement-angajai;

procesul lent de luare a deciziilor;monitorizarea excesiv a subordonailor;

prea multe instrumente i documente caredescurajeaz gndirea creativ; birocraiaeste tolerat.

Lipsa de iniiativ: motivare sczut;oamenii nu simt cum contribuia lor laactivitate face diferena; managementuleueazn implicarea efectiva salariailor;oamenii lucreazdefensiv, nu creativ, i facdoar treaba.Comunicare verticaldeficitar: oamenii nuau nicio idee despre cum aratimaginea deansamblu a activitii desfurate decompanie i simt c munca lor nu esteimportant; prea mult incertitudine;oamenii nu tiu care sunt planurile de viitorla nivel de management, cu alte cuvinte nusunt informai.Colaborarea cros-funcional este slab:lipsa de obiective cros-funcionale i despirit de echip; procesul de gestionare aafacerilor este doar funcional, dar nu se

bazeaz pe o imagine de ansamblu asupracompaniei.Lipsa spiritului de echip: lipsa

angajamentului de a dezvolta cultura

Economists identified during the time ninesigns defining a losing organization(http://www.1000advices.com):

Fuzzy vision: corporate vision and

mission don't inspire people; lack ofstrategic alignment; people don't knowwhere the organization is going and whatit is trying to achieve in the future.Lack of leadership skills: fear of change;leaders lack entrepreneurial spirit;leadership style on the part ofmanagement is either too directive or toohands-off; managers do not lead, they

just administrate and micromanage; weakleadership development program.

Discouraging culture: no shared values;lack of trust; blame culture; focus on

problems, not opportunities; people don'thave fun at work; diversity is notcelebrated; failures are not tolerated;

people lose confidence in their leadersand systems.High bureaucracy: bureaucraticorganizational structures with too manylayers; high boundaries betweenmanagement layers; slow decision

making; too close monitoring of thingsand subordinates; too many tools anddocuments discouraging creativethinking; bureaucracy is tolerated.Lack of initiative: poor motivation andencouragement; people do not feel theircontributions make a difference;management fails to engage theorganization effectively; people workdefensively and not creatively, they dotheir job, and nothing more.Poor vertical communication: peoplehave no clue of the big picture and do notfeel that their contributions areimportant; too much uncertainty; peopledon't know what top-managers arethinking and planning.Poor cross-functional collaboration:functional mindset; lack of cross-functional goals and cross-functionalcollaboration spirit; functional, no

enterprise-wide business process


7/14



143

lucrului n echip; lipsa de obiectivecomune; echip slab de lideri; tolerareamembrilor echipei care nu doresc s i

joace rolul cuvenit n cadrul echipei;

dimensiunile prea mari ale echipelor; lipsarecompenselor partajate.Lipsa managementului bazat pe cunotere:folosirea ncruciat de idei nu estefacilitat; lipsa de strategii i sisteme demanagement bazat pe cunoatere; atutudineade atotcunosctor a managerului.

n scopul de a transforma culturacorporativ n avantajul competitiv suprem,companiile trebuie s ia n considerare cteva

elemente.n primul rnd, chiar i n cadrul aceleiai

industrii, adesea firmele dezvolt culturicorporatiste remarcabil diferite. De exemplu, nmediul de afaceri romnesc, companiile adoptadesea un comportament dual n conceperea i /sau comunicarea culturii lor corporative. Apareastfel n mod paradoxal aa-numita "culturcorporativ real" - strict legat de punerea naplicare a procedurilor corporaiei i "culturaimaginii corporative", care ncearc s

mbunteasc imaginea corporaiei, cu scopulatragerii partenerilor de afaceri i clienilor,copiind modele din strintate. Mai mult dectatt, exist un segment important de companiiromneti care nc nu i-au dezvoltat proprialor cultura corporativ.

n al doilea rnd, aceste culturi eterogenecorporative se caracterizeaz, printre altele, prindiferene n gradul de motivare, precum i ncazul cultivrii lucrului n echip. Este, deasemenea, foarte important pentru companii si atragcei mai buni angajai. Construirea uneiculturi care surclaseaz concurena ncepe prinatragerea i recrutarea de angajai bine pregtii.Dacun angajator a depus tot efortul pentru a-iangaja pe cei mai buni, urmtorul pas logic esteacela de a se asigura c aceti angajai suntimplicai n obinerea succesului organizaiei.

n cele din urm, firmele care beneficiazde un nivel ridicat al lucrului n echipsunt mai

productive dect firmele cu un nivel redus de

lucru n echip. Ichniowski, Shaw i Prennushi

management; no cross-functionalmanagement committees; lack of or

powerless cross-functional teams.Poor teamwork: no organizational

commitment to team culture; lack ofshared and worthwhile goals; weak teamleaders; team members who don't want to

play as part of a team are tolerated; teamsare too large; lack of shared rewards.Poor idea and knowledge management:cross-pollination of ideas is notfacilitated; no idea management andknowledge management strategies andsystems; "know-it-all" attitude; "notinvented here" syndrome.

In order to transform the corporateculture in the ultimate competitive advantage,companies have to take into considerationsome elements. First, even within the sameindustry firms often develop remarkablydifferent corporate cultures. For instance, inthe Romanian business environment,companies are frequently dual in conceivingand/or communicating their corporateculture. We have paradoxically, the so-called

real corporate culture strictly related tothe implemented corporate procedures andthe image corporate culture that tries toimprove the corporate image, to adjust it infront of business partners and clients,according to foreign models. Moreover, thereis an important segment of Romaniancompanies that have not developed yet theirown corporate culture.

Second, these heterogeneous corporatecultures are characterized, amongst others, bydifferences in the degree of incentives andthe level of team work that is observed withinfirms. There is also very important forcompanies to attract the best employees.Building a culture that outperforms thecompetition starts by attracting and recruitingthe right people. If an employer has put forththe effort to hire only the very best, the nextlogical step is to ensure these employees areengaged in the success of the organization.

Finally, firms enjoying high levels of team


8/14



144

(1997), de exemplu, au raportat diferenesubstaniale n practicile de management alresurselor umane (inclusiv n ceea ce privete

practicile de lucru n echip, repartizarea

locurilor de munc, formare, angajare,supraveghere, etc.) n cazul unui eantion de 36de linii de producie din SUA, toate opernd nacelai domeniu. Mai mult, ei au demonstrat cfirmele care utlizeaz practici inovatoare,

punnd accent i pe lucrul n echip, suntsemnificativ mai productive dect firmele carefolosesc n continuare metode tradiionale deabordare, conform crora lucrul n echip nu

joacun rol important.Pentru companii este, de asemenea, foarte

important s se defineasc n mod clar i sstabileasc ce ateapt de la cei din interiorulorganizaiei pentru a excela n utilizarea culturiicorporative n avantaj propriu.

n scopul nfrngerii concurenilor,companiile trebuie saibo culturcorporativcare valorific diferenele culturale. Acestecompanii nu numai comunic ceea ce ateaptn termeni de performan, dar ofer, deasemenea, angajailor instrumente, resurse itraining, care sle permitsdemonstreze care

este mesajul central al companiei. n plus, ocultur care accept de regul feedback ifavorizeaz deschis comunicarea, ofer o maimare satisfacie angajailor, pentru c acetianeleg ce se ateaptde la ei i pentru c li seofer dreptul de a utiliza resurse n vedereaatingerii obiectivelor. Angajaii doresc s aibcu ce se mndri. Ei isi doresc s contribuie lasuccesul organizaiei din care fac parte, tiind cvor beneficia de oportuniti de dezvoltare i derecompense. n vederea dezvoltrii viitoare,orice organizaie trebuie s i formeze uncolectiv fidel, loial i implicat. De asemenea,este clar coamenii au aptitudini, abiliti i altecaracteristici personale foarte diferite. Punereaaccentului pe diversitate face parte din avantajulcultural - o cultura corporativ ctigtoarecombintoate atributele pozitive ale angajailor

pentru a construi un colectiv de naltperforman, capabil s ating obiectivele imisiunea companiei.

Deci, putem spune c elementele de mai

work are more productive than firms withoutor with only low levels of team work.Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi (1997), forexample, report substantial differences in

human resource management practices(including practices concerning team work,job assignment, training, hiring, supervision,etc.) in a sample of 36 U.S. production linesall of which operate in the same steelfinishing business. Furthermore, they findthat lines using innovative work practices,which include high levels of team work, aresignificantly more productive than lines withthe traditional approach where team workdoes not play an important role.

There is also very important forcompanies to clearly define themselves andwhat they expect from those inside theorganization in order to excel in usingcorporate culture to their advantage.

In order to beat competitors,companies must have a corporate culture thatvalue strong cultural differentiation. Thesecompanies not only communicate what theyexpect in terms of performance but also

provide employees with the tools, resourcesand training that enable them to demonstratethe company's core message. Additionally, aculture that supports ongoing, regularfeedback and fosters open communicationdelivers greater satisfaction to employees

because they understand what is expected ofthem and are given the right resources toachieve it. Employees want to take pride intheir achievements. They want to contributeto organizational success, knowing there are

development opportunities and rewardsavailable to them. An integral part ofdelivering on future needs is creating ahighly engaged workforce. It is also clear that

people's skills, abilities and other personalcharacteristics are very different. A focus ondiversity also is part of the cultural advantage

a winning corporate culture combines allemployees' positive attributes to build a high-

performance workforce that drives thecompany's goals and mission.

So, we can say that the elements


9/14



145

sus care definesc cultura corporativ au unimpact pozitiv asupra modului n care semanifest concurena pe pia. n scopulsusinerii acestei idei, putem vedea c, n

conformitate cu un recent studiu realizat dectre Ronald Burt, profesor de sociologie i destrategie de la University Of Chicago GraduateSchool Of Business, o cultur corporativ

puternic poate influena pozitiv performanaeconomic a unei firme. Dar nu exist niciogaranie conform creia o cultur corporativ

puternicasigurperformana. n schimb, acestapoate reduce costurile (Burt, 2000). Obiectivelei practicile firmei sunt mai clare, diminundansele ca un angajat s acioneze

necorespunztor. Ca urmare, costurile demonitorizare a angajatilor sunt reduse.Convingerile comune, care ar defini o culturacorporativ funcioneaz ca un mecanisminformal de control care coordoneaz efortulangajailor. Angajaii, care se abat de la

practicile acceptate pot fi uor detectai i certaimai rapid i mai puin vizibil, de ctre prieteni inu de ctre ef. Angajaii, de asemenea, lucreazmai asiduu i pentru o perioadmai ndelungatde timp n cazul unei organizaii care are o

cultura corporativ puternic. n plus, atuncicnd cultura corporativ este construit socialde ctre angajai, mai degrab dect formal deautoritate, motivarea angajailor, precum imoralul acestora crete. Angajaii dezvoltastfel sentimentul de proprietate i devininteresai de sntatea i performana firmei.(Burt, 2000)

Evitarea tendinelor de manipulare aangajailor este de asemenea, importantpentrucse evitastfel situaii tensionate, conflicte demunci stabilirea de modele corporative, care

pot avea un impact negativ att asupraangajailor, ct asupra partenerilor de afaceri.

Pe lng efectele pozitive pe care legenereaz cultura corporativ n privinamodului de funcionare a mecanismuluiconcurenial, trebuie savem n vedere cexistmomente n care aceasta se opune concurenei.De multe ori, marile companii utilizeazun tipde manipulare a propriilor angajai, pentru a

evita concurena natural. Fidelitatea pe care o

above defining the corporate culture have apositive impact on the way competitionworks on the market. In order to sustain thisidea, we can see that according to a recent

research by Ronald Burt, a professor ofsociology and strategy at the University OfChicago Graduate School Of Business, astrong corporate culture can positively affecta firm's economic performance. But there isno guarantee that a strong culture assureshigh performance. A strong corporate culturealso reduces costs. (Burt, 2000). The firm'sgoals and practices are clearer, which lessensthe chances of an employee takinginappropriate action due to conflicting

accounts of the firm's objectives. As a result,costs of monitoring employees are reduced.The shared beliefs that define a corporateculture function as an informal controlmechanism that coordinates employee effort.Employees who deviate from accepted

practice can be easily detected andadmonished faster and less visibly by friendsthan by the boss. Employees also workharder and for longer hours in anorganization with a strong corporate culture.

In addition, when corporate culture issocially constructed by employees rather thanimposed through formal lines of authority,employee motivation and morale increase.Employees develop a sense of ownership andestablish a stake in the firm's health and

performance. (Burt, 2000)Avoiding employees manipulation is

also important as it avoids tensed situations,work conflicts and the establishment ofcorporate models which can have a negativeimpact both on employees and on business

partners.Beside the positive effects a strong

corporate culture might have on the waycompetition works; we have to see that thereare times when it opposes to competition.Many times, big companies use a kind ofmanipulation of their own employees in orderto avoid natural competition. The fidelitythey ask their employees can be seen as a

value for the corporation, but not for the


10/14



146

cer angajailor lor poate fi vzut ca o valoarepentru societate, dar nu i pentru mediul deafaceri. Informaiile sunt folosite de multe ori

pentru a evita un circuit normal, transparena

pieei fiind influenat negativ. Culturacorporativ ar putea chiar s fac o corporaieimunla greve. n sistemul bancar romnesc, deexemplu, grevele sunt oprite nainte de a ncepe,ntruct banii nu pot fi n grev, acetia trebuiescircule. Valorile respectate de ctre angajai idetermin s acioneze n aa fel nct s nuinflueneze negativ imaginea bncii pentru carelucreaz.

n concluzie, pentru ca o corporaie sifoloseasc cultura corporativ drept un avantaj

competitiv, trebuie s-i studieze n primul rnd,concurenii. O bunanalizcompetitivincludeatt ceea ce concurenii ar trebui sfacpentru areui, ct i ceea ce este probabil ca acetia sfac. O componentimportantn nelegerea aceea ce este probabil ca acetia s fac, oreprezint identificarea corect a stilului deleadership i a culturii corporative. n cazulrealizrii unei astfel de analize, trebuie sse inseama de faptul catunci cnd analizezi culturacorporativ a unui concurent, exist cinci

atribute care trebuie studiate (Fahey, 1999):Integrarea.Ct este de integratculturan firm i ct este de integrat ncomunicarea extern. Este mesajulconsistent?Uniformitatea. Ct este de uniformcultura? Marile companii au filiale nmulte zone geografice i au multe diviziide operare. Ct este de ncorporatcultura corporativ n toate aceste zonegeografice i entiti?Alinierea. Ce este cultura asociatinfrastructurii organizaiei? Exist ovaloare corporativ declarat pe carecompania nu reuete s o sprijine cucompensare i recompense? Areconcurentul principal un singur set devalori, n timp ce n industria ca unntreg se schimb ntr-o cu totul altdirecie? Aceasta ofer o imagine deviitor a concurentului!

Durabilitatea. Este cultura durabil i

business environment. Information is manytimes used in order to avoid a normal circuit,market transparency being negativelyinfluenced. The corporate culture may even

make immune to strikes certain corporations.In Romanian banking system, for instance,strikes are being stopped to develop from thevery begin, as the money can not be in strike,they must circulate. The values respected bythe employees make them not to influencenegatively the image of their bank.

In conclusion, for a corporation touse its corporate culture as a competitiveadvantage, it must study first the competitors.A good competitive analysis includes both

what competitors should do to succeed, andwhat they are likely to do. A significantcomponent of understanding what they arelikely to do is knowing the style of theleaders and the culture of the corporation.When realizing such an analysis, one musttake into account that there arefive attributesto think about when you look at a

competitors culture (Fahey,1999):

Integration. How integrated is theculture within the company and how

integrated is the culturecommunicated externally toaudiences. Is the message consistentor all over the place?Embeddedness. How uniform is theculture? Large companies serve inmany geographical areas and havemany operating divisions. How

persistent or embedded is the cultureacross those geographies and entities?Alignment. How is the culturealigned with the organizationsinfrastructure? Is there one statedcorporate value the company fails tosupport with compensation andrewards? Does the competitor haveone set of values, while the industryas a whole is changing in a totallydifferent direction? This provides aninsight for the future of thatcompetitor!

Durability. Is the culture durable and


11/14



147

consecventn timp?Adaptabilitatea. Cultura i normele deorganizare se pot adapta la un mediu nschimbare? Acest punct aratct de bine

se adapteaz la schimbare culturacorporativ a unui concurent. Esteaceast cultur imobil, greu de adaptatla schimbrile mediului de afaceri saueste foarte flexibil i capabil de a seschimba rapid?

n scopul sublinierii capacitii de adaptarei de inovare, putem studia cultura corporativaGoogle. O cultura ndrzneacare nu cunoateconceptul de fric, permite existena i

activitatea 24 din 24 de ore a Googleplex, ocolecie de cldiri interconectate care aratca uncampus new-age. n continuare vom enumeradoar cteva dintre facilitile pentru care suntinvidiai n Silicon Valley cei care lucreaza

pentru Google: birouri plasate n cldiri noi dinsticl colorat; mese gratuite de trei ori pe zi;libera utilizare a unei piscine n aer liber; saldegimnastic de interior; centru de ngrijire acopiilor angajailor; autobuze de serviciu ctreSan Francisco i alte zone rezidentiale.

Angajaii de la Google sunt ncurajai spropun idei slbatice i ambiioase.Responsabilii desemneazechipe mici pentru avedea dac ideile propuse sunt funcionale.Aproape toata lumea la Google poarta titlulgeneric de "Product Manager." Tuturoringinerilor le este permis s aloce 20% dintimpul de lucru pentru a-i testa ideile.(http://archive.gulfnews.com) Multe din

proiectele personale randament sunt fcutepublice,dup cum s-a vzut n cazul reeleisociale Orkut i Google News, o colecie delink-uri pentru tiri. La urma urmei, nu toatlumea vrea sfie angajatde ctre o companiecunoscutdrept un loc extraordinar de munc?

Politica de angajare a Google estenediscriminatorie i pune pe locul nticapacitatea/abilitatea, experiena fiind pe locsecund. Rezultatul este un personal care sreflecte publicul global care folosete acest

motor de cutare. Google are birouri pe tot

consistent over time?Adaptability. Do the culture andnorms of the organization supportadapting to a changing environment?

This point meshes with alignment, andasks how well a competitorscorporate culture internally adapts tothe environment. Is the culture so castin stone and so immovable thatadaptation to business changes will bevery slow, or is it very flexible andable to change quickly?

In order to emphasize the adaptabilityand innovation, we can study the Google

corporate culture. The resulting culture offearlessness permeates the 24-hourGoogleplex, a collection of interconnectedlow-rise buildings that look like some new-age college campus. The colorful, glass-encased offices feature upscale trappings -free meals three times a day; free use of anoutdoor wave pool, indoor gym and largechild care facility; private shuttle bus serviceto San Francisco and other residential areas -that are the envy of workers all over SiliconValley. Google employees are encouraged to

propose wild, ambitious ideas often.Supervisors assign small teams to see if theideas work. Nearly everyone at Googlecarries a generic job title, such as "productmanager." All engineers are allotted 20 percent of their time to work on their own ideas.(http://archive.gulfnews.com) Many of the

personal projects yield public offerings, suchas the social networking Web site Orkut andGoogle News, a collection of headlines andnews links. After all, doesn't everyone wantto be employed by a company known as agreat place to work?

Google's hiring policy is aggressivelynon-discriminatory and favors ability overexperience. The result is a staff that reflectsthe global audience the search engine serves.Google has offices around the globe andGoogle engineering centers are recruiting

local talent in locations from Zurich to


12/14



148

Globul, iar centrele tehnice Google recruteaztalente locale n locaiile companiei pornind dinZurich i ajungnd n Bangalore. AngajaiiGoogle folosesc zeci de limbi de la turcpnla

telugu. Cnd nu sunt la locul de munc, acetiadesfoar activiti dintre cele mai diverse, dela ciclism pnla degustare de vinuri, de la zbor

pnla Frisbee. Pe msurce Google i extindeechipa, continu s i caute pe cei caremprtesc un angajament obsesiv n a

perfeciona cutarea pe Internet, timp n care sei distreazfcndu-i treaba.

Cultura corporativ explic n maremsurgamlargde produse pe care companiai permite s o ofere, n auto-proclamata

misiune de a organiza informaiile mondiale. ntimp Google a lansat produse de multe orinainte ca acestea s fie gata, chiar i cele

premature inculcnd team concurenilor, caretiu cde liderul dispune i de rbdare i de bani- o valoare de piade aproximativ 140 miliardedolari i 2.69 miliarde dolari n venituritrimestriale - pentru a continua s ncerce.Acesta este de asemenea, un mesaj pe careGoogle l trimite angajatilor: "Dacnu dai gredes, nseamn c nu ai ncercat suficient de

mult"(declaraie a lui Richard Holden, directorpentru managementul produselor la service-ulGoogle AdWords,departament n cadrul cruiaau loc licitaiile n cazul ageniilor de publicitate

pentru a plasa reclame text lng rezultatelecutrii). "Teama de eec este mai mic,deoarece noi ncurajm proiectele personale, iardac acestea sunt sortite eecului, trecem maideparte la altele." (http://toostep.com)

Deci, putem observa o corporatie, care estecapabil s dezvolte o cultur a schimbrii idinamismului care reflectfilozofia generaldelucru a Google: generoas,capabil s inangajaii fericii i s stimuleze utilizarea unormoduri neconventionale gndire, ajutndGoogle sinoveze i sextindrapid noile liniide business. Multi considera cultura Googleciudat, spre deosebire de ceea ce se considern general a fi o cultura corporativ. Acelora noidorim s le transmitem faptul c lumea este nschimbare i c n acelai timp,chiar ei se

schimb, chiar dac nu i dau seama.

Bangalore. Dozens of languages are spokenby Google staffers, from Turkish to Telugu.When not at work, Googlers pursue interestsfrom cross-country cycling to wine tasting,

from flying to frisbee. As Google expands itsdevelopment team, it continues to look forthose who share an obsessive commitment tocreating search perfection and having a greattime doing it.

The corporate countercultureexplains a lot about why the company rollsout such a wide range of products in its self-

proclaimed mission to organize the world'sinformation. While Google often launches

products before they are ready for primetime, even the premature ones instill fear incompetitors, who know the search leader hasthe patience and money - a market value ofabout $140 billion and $2.69 billion inquarterly revenue - to keep trying. That's alsoa message Google sends employees: "Ifyou're not failing enough, you're not tryinghard enough," said Richard Holden, productmanagement director for Google's AdWordsservice, in which advertisers bid to place textads next to search results. "The stigma (forfailure) is less because we staff projectsleanly and encourage them to just move,move, and move. If it doesn't work, moveon." (http://toostep.com)

So, we can observe a corporation that isable to develop a culture of changing thingsaround that reflect Google's general

philosophy of work: generous, keep

employees happy and thinking inunconventional ways, helping Googleinnovate as it rapidly expands into new linesof business. Many consider Google culture

being strange, opposed to what is consideredto be a corporate culture. To those we want tosay that the world is changing and in thesame time, we are changing, even we dontrealize. Companies become morecompetitive, competition tends to be moreintense. In this context, CEOs must take into

consideration the fact that corporate culture


13/14



149

Companiile devin mai competitive, concurenatinde s fie mai intens. n acest context,managerii trebuie s ia n considerare faptul c

poate fi utilpracticarea unei culturi corporative

altfel dect convenional.Deci, cand un manager va dori s facmodificri, n vederea adaptrii la procesul deinovare, va trebui sia n considerare faptul cmodificarea culturii corporative este un proiect

pe termen lung. Cultura corporativeste greu demodificat, iar angajaii au nevoie de timp pentrua se obinui cu noul mod de organizare. Pentrucompaniile cu o culturcorporativputernicvafi chiar mai dificil de a o schimba, darmodificarea unor elemente componente ale

acesteia reprezint un proces important iinevitabil. Simplu fapt c o companie a fostodat lider n industria n care activeaz, nu oface imunla impactul pe care l are schimbarearadical. Foti lideri i-au pierdut cota de pia,n parte, i pentru cau ignorat sau manageriat

prost propria cultur corporativ. Cndcompaniile nu sunt capabile s-i schimbecultura, ele nu se pot atepta saibsucces i sse adapteze rapid la mediul de afaceri supusschimbrii continue i la condiiile de noii piee.

Acestea sunt sortite eecului. Inovaia n cazulculturii presupune introducerea unor elementede noutate, proces considerat a fi mai dificildect acela de perpetuare a vechilor elemente.(http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-feb/p17andrew.html) Oamenii deseori suntrefractari la nnoire, prin urmare, este de datoriamanagementului s-i conving c vor avea dectigat din aplicarea elementelor de noutate.

Bibliografie

Allaire, Y., Firsirotu, M., 1984, Theories ofOrganizational Culture, OrganizationStudies 5, 193-226Becker, H., Geer, B., 1960, ParticipantObservation: The Analysis of QualitativeField Data, n R. N. Adams and J.J. Preiss(editors), Human Organization Research:Field Relations and Techniques

(Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press)

may be otherwise than conventional.

So, when one wants to do changes,to adapt the culture to innovation, one has to

keep in consideration that this is a long termproject. Corporate culture is something that isvery hard to change and employees need timeto get used to the new way of organizing. Forcompanies with a very strong and specificculture it will be even harder to change, butchanging some elements of the culture is veryimportant and inevitable. Because a companywas once an industry leader does not make itimmune to the impact of radical change.Former industry-leading companies have lost

critical market share, in part, because theyignored or mismanaged their culturescompanies. When companies are not able tochange their cultures, they cannot expect to

be successful in responding to radicallychanging business conditions in themarketplace. They will fail. Cultureinnovations is bound to be because it entailsintroducing something new and substantiallydifferent from what prevails in existingcultures. Cultural innovation is bound to bemore difficult than cultural maintenance.(http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-feb/p17andrew.html) People often resistchanges hence it is the duty of themanagement to convince people that likelygain will outweigh the losses.

Bibliography

Allaire, Y. and M. Firsirotu, 1984,Theories of Organizational Culture,Organization Studies 5, 193-226Becker, H. and B., Geer, 1960,Participant Observation: The Analysis ofQualitative Field Data, in R. N. Adamsand J.J. Preiss (editors), HumanOrganization Research: Field Relationsand Techniques (Homewood, IL: DorseyPress)Burt, R.S., 2000, The Culture Effect:

Corporate culture, competition and


14/14



150

Burt, R.S., 2000, The Culture Effect:Corporate culture, competition and marketsall affect company performance, CapitalIdeas vol. 2, no.3

Cremer, J., 1993, Corporate Culture andShared Knowledge", Industrial andCorporate Change, 2, 351-386.Fahey, L., 1999, Competitors: Outwitting,Outmaneuvering, and Outperforming,(New York: John Wiley & Sons)Hermalin, B. E.,1994, Heterogeneity nOrganizational Form: Why OtherwiseIdentical Firms Choose Different Incentivesfor their Managers", RAND Journal ofEconomics, 25, 518-537.

Ichniowski, C., K. Shaw, and G. Prennushi,1997, The Effects of Human ResourceManagement Practices on Productivity: AStudy of Steel Finishing Lines", AmericanEconomic Review, 87, 291-313.Kreps, D. M., 1990, Corporate Culture andEconomic Theory", n Perspectives onPositive Political Economy, edited by J.E.Alt and K.A. Shepsle, (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK)Langevoort, D.C., 2006, Opening the

Black Box of Corporate Culture n Lawand Economics, Journal of Institutional andTheoretical Economics 162, 8096.Rob, R., and P. Zemsky, 2002, SocialCapital, Corporate Culture, and IncentiveIntensity", RAND Journal of Economics,33, 243-257.Schein, E.H., 2004, Organizational Cultureand Leadership, Third Edition, (WileyPublishers, New York)Want, J., 2006, Corporate Culture.Illuminating the Black Hole, St. Martin'sPresshttp://www.1000advices.comhttp://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-feb/p17andrew.htmlhttp://archive.gulfnews.com

http://toostep.com

markets all affect company performance,Capital Ideas vol. 2, no.3Cremer, J., 1993, Corporate Culture andShared Knowledge", Industrial and

Corporate Change, 2, 351-386.Fahey, L., 1999, Competitors:Outwitting, Outmaneuvering, andOutperforming, (New York: John Wiley& Sons)Hermalin, B. E.,1994, Heterogeneity inOrganizational Form: Why OtherwiseIdentical Firms Choose DifferentIncentives for their Managers", RANDJournal of Economics, 25, 518-537.Ichniowski, C., K. Shaw, and G.

Prennushi, 1997, The Effects of HumanResource Management Practices onProductivity: A Study of Steel FinishingLines", American Economic Review, 87,291-313.Kreps, D. M., 1990, Corporate Cultureand Economic Theory", in Perspectiveson Positive Political Economy, edited byJ.E. Alt and K.A. Shepsle, (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK)Langevoort, D.C., 2006, Opening the

Black Box of Corporate Culture in Lawand Economics, Journal of Institutionaland Theoretical Economics 162, 8096.Rob, R., and P. Zemsky, 2002, SocialCapital, Corporate Culture, and IncentiveIntensity", RAND Journal of Economics,33, 243-257.Schein, E.H., 2004, OrganizationalCulture and Leadership, Third Edition,(Wiley Publishers, New York)Want, J., 2006, Corporate Culture.Illuminating the Black Hole, St. Martin'sPresshttp://www.1000advices.comhttp://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-feb/p17andrew.htmlhttp://archive.gulfnews.comhttp://toostep.com

10 angela rogojanu

Documents