In this discussion about organizational structure, there will be two different articles discussing separate approaches to and implications of organizational structure: the first, written by Ramachandran et al. (2011) is entitled, “Organisational culture: An exploratory study comparing faculties' perspectives within public and private universities in Malaysia.” The second, written by Macintosh and Doherty (2007), is entitled “Extending the scope of organisational culture: The external perception of an internal phenomenon.” Each approaches the issue of organizational structure differently, and each presents important implications regarding the structure of different organizational groups.
[Main findings] Ramachandran et al. (2011) are primarily concerned with the implications of different organizational structure systems on higher educational institutions in Malaysia as a whole (Ramachandran et al. 2011). Practically, the Ramachandran et al. study is concerned with providing guidelines to higher educational institutions regarding the organizational structures that are most effective in these settings.[Context] Ramachandran et al. (2011) write, “The results show that on an overall, the HEIs surveyed display a moderate culture The HEIs have responded to the environmental needs at the point of their establishments therefore a moderate culture has been instilled within the academics of the universities. This is consistent that a moderate culture is an optimum culture for successful institutions, which in this case includes both public and private HEIs. This implies that the HEIs are in a good position to enhance their cultural practices for change management initiatives in response to the changes in the dynamic environment” (Ramachandran et al. 2011). Moreover, the Ramachandran et al. (2011) study suggests that examining different types of organizational culture in higher education will provide insights for both public and private institutions, allowing them to maximize their own individual organizational culture for the maximum global impact on staff and students alike.
[Main findings] The Macintosh and Doherty (2007) study, on the other hand, discusses the implications for organizational culture on the corporate world. An interesting part of this study is the emphasis placed on the comparison between the corporate world and the sports world; the competitive nature of organizational culture, according to Macintosh and Doherty (2007), lends itself to a comparison between sports and business. [Context] The external perception of organizational culture, in addition, is very important to the development of organizational culture within a particular institution or corporate environment as well. Macintosh and Doherty also studied the external perceptions of a specific firm in their study, and noted that the integrity of the firm was not well-perceived by external members of the public; this was reflected by the internal organizational structure of the company. Managers of this particular company were asked to list their values and the values of the organization, and integrity was not highly listed; as a result, the external perception of the company or firm was skewed away from integrity as an important factor within the organizational culture of the firm.
[Similarities/differences] Organizational culture, or the “way things are done” within an organization, group, company, and so on varies heavily based on those who have power and influence within the organization. The values of those in power are often the values that become important to the organization as a whole. Within certain organizations with highly competent leaders, these values can be a great boon to the organization; however, an organization can also suffer heavily from bad leadership and poor values.
Balan, J. 1990. Private Universities within the Argentine Higher Educational System: Trends and Prospects. Higher education policy, 3 (2), pp. 13--17.
Considine, M. 1990. Managerialism strikes out. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 49 (2), pp. 166--178.
Macintosh, E. and Doherty, A. 2007. Extending the scope of organisational culture: The external perception of an internal phenomenon. Sport Management Review, 10 (1), pp. 45--64.
Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C. and Ismail, H. 2011. Organisational culture: An exploratory study comparing faculties' perspectives within public and private universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (6), pp. 615--634.
Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C. and Lin, B. 2008. Perceived importance and effectiveness of KM performance outcomes: perspective of institutions of higher learning. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 5 (1), pp. 18--37.
Scott, P. G. and Falcone, S. 1998. Comparing Public and Private Organizations An Exploratory Analysis of Three Frameworks. The American Review of Public Administration, 28 (2), pp. 126--145.
Shilbury, D., Smith, A. and Others. 2004. Mapping Cultural Dimensions in Australian Sporting Organisations. Melbourne, Australia: Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ),.
Smart, J. C. and John, E. P. S. 1996. Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test of the “culture type” and “strong culture” hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18 (3), pp. 219--241.
Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. 1993. The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Weese, W. J. 1996. Do leadership and organizational culture really matter?. Journal of Sport Management, 10 (2).