Introduction
It has been eye opening and illuminating to read and discuss organizational culture, climate and design in the past few weeks. I am beginning to connect various components of organizational theory to create a big picture to develop my understanding of organizations in general. In addition, I have been able to look at organizations through a variety of lenses in order to critically analyze their structure, design or culture. In this synthesis paper, I examine Google’s and IKEA’s organizational culture and analyze the implications of 3D printing on organizations. Tapscott & Williams (2010) “…believe that the world has reached a critical turning point: reboot all the old models, approaches and structures or risk institutional paralysis or even collapse” (p. 10). The trends that are seen within these organizations and new technologies demonstrate changes in organizational paradigms.
Google
Hoy (1990) states that “the climate of an organization may roughly be conceived as the “personality” of the organization (i.e., climate is to organization as personality is to individual)” (p.151). This struck me as a significant metaphor to describe the importance of climate in an organization. This metaphor can help explain why we have brand loyalty in the same way that we get along with individuals whose personalities we like. A personality determines whether we are attracted to an individual, and in the same regard the climate of an organization can make a positive impact on how a product or service is perceived by its consumers.
Google’s founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed five lessons of wisdom that represent Google’s culture.
1. “Don’t sell your soul to the highest bidder” (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.417)
2. “Create a culture of risk taking” (all employees are allocated 20% of their time at Google to work on personal projects) (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.417)
3. “It’s all about the product”(Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.417)
4. “Don’t get greedy” (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.417)
5. “Keep your employees motivated and satisfied” (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.417)
By implementing these lessons, the founders created an organization that was very different from the mechanistic model of organizational structure. These lessons in turn create a climate of transparency, collaboration, openness, sharing of data and intellectual property. These organizational traits are described in Macrowikinomics as organizations move away from hierarchical designs to more organic designs (Tapscott & Williams, 2010). In terms of organizational design, Google’s approach seems to be one of contingency design which allows for flexibility and change (McCaskey, 1974). I have related the idea of contingency design to that of individual learning styles of students. By using contingency design, an organization can create a unique structure to meet its needs in the same way that individual learning styles are unique ways of learning for each individual.
IKEA
The February 26th - March 4th edition of the Economist stated that IKEA’s cooperate culture is based on thrift (The Economist Blood and Oil, 2011). This is interesting to note as organizational culture is defined as underlying values and assumptions (Dension, 1996). My first thought was: is thrift either an underlying value or assumption? I initially thought that thrift cannot be used to describe an organizational culture because Barney (1986) states that an organizations core values can improve employee morale and quality of work life. After re-reading Schein’s article I realized that thrift is certainly the basis for the organizations culture but not necessarily the component that affects employee morale or quality of work life. There must be other determinates and factors that influence morale and quality of work life; however, the idea of creating a culture based on thrift is at the core of IKEA’S underlying values and assumptions. IKEA has developed trendy, easy to assemble, easy to transport and most importantly inexpensive furniture. Their goal is to provide people with trendy furniture at a low cost (The Economist Blood and Oil, 2011). Based on the two quotations below, I have come to realize how organizational culture can develop based on the founder’s initial ideas and principles.
Gordon (1991) states that organizational culture can be seen as “…the assumptions and values pertinent to issues of managing and competing for organizational survival and prosperity (i.e., the values relevant to running the business)” (p. 397).
Schein (1983) states that:
Organizational culture, then, is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developing in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration – a pattern of assumptions that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 14)
These statements show that thrift could be used to describe an organization's culture since it is one of the key factors in making IKEA profitable and highly successful. It is an underlying corporate value and in combination with other organizational culture determinates, it forms the overall organizational culture. The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad, based the idea of low cost trendy furniture on the lifestyle of a poor region in Sweden (The Economist Blood and Oil, 2011). He developed the company’s cultural paradigm and vision based on this principle and used it to develop a product. He proposed a solution to a problem: to create trendy and inexpensive furniture, we need to be thrifty (Schein, 1983). Also, thrift could be seen to describe a subculture within IKEA resounding within the design/production units of the company. We understand that organizations can have subcultures within their subunits; however, the overall culture is based in an underlying organizational assumption (Gordon, 1991). This analysis of IKEA’s corporate culture based in thrift shows that organizational culture is complex and intricate.
3D Printing and Organizational Structure/Design
“Just as nobody could have predicted the impact of the steam engine in 1750-or the printing press in 1450, or the transistor in 1950-it is impossible to foresee the long-term impact of 3D printing” (The Economist Print me a Stradivarius, 2011, p.11). 3D printing is a form of manufacturing products through the process of additive manufacturing as opposed to subtractive manufacturing. 3D printers print 3D objects but instead of using ink they can use a variety of materials which deposit layer after layer on the printers surface to create the object. This technology creates a paradigm shift in the manufacturing process and the way industries are organized. “In the old paradigm, there were clear roles and responsibilities. In the new world of wikinomics, the lines between sectors and institutions are blurring” (Tapscott & Williams, 2010, p.19). Instead of outsourcing and paying other companies to create a product, organizations can design and print their own products dependent on their demands. This form of manufacturing also promotes collaboration through open source designs and encourages innovation (The Economist Print me a Stradivarius, 2011).
Tapscott & Williams state that:
Collaborative communities not only transcend the boundaries of time and space, they can reach across the usual disciplinary and organizational silos that inhibit cooperation, learning and progress. In doing all these things, mass collaboration provides an attractive alternative to the hierarchical, command-and-control management systems that are failing many of our key institutions. (p.19)
In terms of organizational structure, organizations and industries can become decentralized as companies will not need to rely on factories to produce their products. This form of manufacturing eliminates the need for job specialization as only a few individuals are needed to design and print the product. Individual companies that rely on factories to produce their products would need to re-design their organizational structure to incorporate the idea of self-designing and producing products. The impact of this technology could eliminate the need of factories and mass production entirely and thus could create great changes in the structure and direction of the economy.
Conclusion
As we move from the industrial age to the knowledge age, it is evident that developing an organization’s design and structure is a complex task (Hinrichs, 2009). New technologies such as 3D printing will change the manufacturing industry’s structure as well as change job specialization and centralized in businesses. Companies such as Google and IKEA have demonstrated that by creating unique organizational cultures, they can harness the power of innovation and become leading successful companies in their industries. By examining these companies and new technologies, we can see changes and shifts in organizational theory that reflect the trends of collaboration, innovation and decentralization (Tapscott & Williams, 2010).
References
Print me a Stradivarius. (2011, February 12th – February 18th). The Economist Print me a Stradivarius, 398(8720), 11.
The secret of IKEA’s success. (2011, February 26th – March 4th). The Economist Blood and Oil, 398(8722), 67-68.
Barney, J.B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.
Dension, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.
Gordon, G.G. (1991). Determinants of Organizational Culture. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 396-415.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. (2007). Organizational Behaviour Eleventh Edition. Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
Hinrichs, G. (2009). Organic Organizational Design. OD Practitioner, 41(4), 4-11.
Hoy, W.K. (1990). Organizational Climate and Culture: A Conceptual Analysis of the School Workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2), 149-168.
McCaskey, M. B. (1974). An Introduction to Organizational Design. California Management Review,17(2), 13-21
Schein, E.H. (1983). The Role of the Founder in Creating Organizational Culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13-28 .
Tapscott D., & Williams, A.D. (2010). Macrowikinomics Rebooting Business and the World. Toronto: Penguin Group.
