HR0372 – CULTURE & ORGANISATION – ASSIGNMENT ESSAY STRUCTURE Purpose: Apply a theoretical framework to conduct an analysis of an Organisation’s CULTURE ASSIGNMENT REPORT STRUCTURE ( +/- 3000 Words) Introduction (approx.. 300 words) Background of the company you have chosen The circumstances leading to the focus of your essay The topics you are going to discuss in the essay Theoretical Framework (approx.. 500 words) Briefly outline/discuss the theoretical framework you have chosen – discuss why your chosen framework is more appropriate for your essay rather than another framework (yes, outline briefly the other framework concepts as well) Argument = taking a viewpoint and justifying it. Discussion of central topic (approx..2000 words) As this module is about culture, you can define culture here Critically discuss and evaluate the cultural issues of your chosen topic by using the framework dimensions. Analyse the issues, use the theoretical concepts to explain/defend your evaluation about what is happening in that issue you are discussing. Conclusion (approx.. 300 words) Summarize the key points of your analysis Make sure the conclusion wraps up and links up to the central topic you mentioned at the beginning of the passage. What could have been done differently? PROPER REFERENCING – APA STYLE At least 10 academic references (published books, textbooks, journals) LINK & RELATE A GOOD DISICUSSION & CRITICAL EVALUATION look like this….. Analysing the issue using theoretical concepts….. Power Distance As dimension of national cultures, power distance reflects the range of basic answers found in the various countries to the basic question of how to handle the fact that people are unequal (Hofstede, 2010). In other words, how should people with different levels of power, prestige and status interact with one another – equally or unequally (Ferraro, 2010). This dimension corresponds to expectations for strong autocratic leadership rather than more egalitarian leadership (Hitt et al., 2009) Shows Research (3 writers), their interpretation to Hofstede’s Power Distance The ranking of the USA is 40 and for Germany is 35. The German’s power distance is smaller than that of the United States and seems inconsistent with the German preference for order and discipline (Scarborough, 1998). For example, Chrysler had a reputation for more freewheeling open culture (Anon., 2004) and mid-level managers were allowed to proceed on their own initiative without executive level approval (Vlasic and Stertz, 2000). This is because the US is an egalitarian society which leads to relative informal relations between people of high and low status, a general disregard of protocol, and high level of delegation of authority (Ferraro, 2010). We will find a similar culture at another American organisation – Google. The company avoided all unnecessary managerial hierarchies, creating a decentralised structure here employees are free to approach top management as desired and work on their own initiative (Hitt et al, 2009). Historically, Americans played down status differences and they become uncomfortable when faced with the type of ceremony, tradition and formalised social rules found more widely throughout Europe (Ferraro, 2010). Therefore it is easy to imagine how uncomfortable they felt when they deal with their German colleagues. Daimler, on the other hand embraced formality and hierarchy, from its intricately structured decision-making processes to its suit-and-tie dress code and respect for titles and proper names (Vlasic & Stertz, 2000). All the employees’ decisions at Daimler worked their way to the top of the hierarchy through formal channels. These are features of a hierarchical society where status and power hierarchies are expected to be maintained. Such formality, centralisation and strict hierarchy in an organisation restrict communication (Clegg et al., 2008). Therefore it is fair to assume that unlike Chrysler or Google, employees at Daimler were unlikely to communicate their ideas to the senior managers. Compares the index of 2 countries’ power distance. Applies the comparison against Chrysler and explains why. Gives another example of low Power Distance example. Explains the Power Distance behaviours and impact Critical Evaluation and makes an assertion after the discussion above