Organizational culture

Studies on organizational culture emerged in a massive way in the 1980s and quickly became popular after that period. In this list, it is possible to highlight: those of ^{Hofstede (1980)} who analyzed the perspective of different countries in order to validate the results; ^{Ouchi (1982)}, who made a comparison between cultural characteristics in American and Japanese companies; ^{Deal & Kennedy (1982)}, who explored the influence of values on the organization’s structure; ^{Peters and Waterman Jr. (1982)}, who reiterated, mainly, the content of the beliefs; ^{Kanter (1983)}, who studied the transformations of individual postures that occurred in American companies; ^{Schein (2004)}, who went beyond the observation of behaviors, prioritizing the learning of groups and the idea that there are cultures with peculiar functions.

For ^{Thévenet (1989, p. 22)}, companies that have strong cultures “are characterized by having value systems with great influence on behaviors and forms of management”, and are coherent and original in decisions and in their ways of functioning. In the meantime, values appear as central elements of the company’s culture. The organizational culture provides meaning to the actions of employees, so successful organizations can have strong managerial values that guide the behavior of individuals and conduct in business. Thus, organizational culture translates the common values and beliefs of an organization's employees, constitutingthe concept of their behaviors and reactions to many organizational activities and convictions (^{Tang, 2019}).

In the meantime, values appear as central elements of the company’s culture. Values represent basic convictions composed of perceptions, attitudes, motivations, personality, aptitudes, skills, among other variables, important for understanding people’s behavior, including at work. (^{Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1988}; ^{Robbins, 2006}).

^{Schwartz (1994)} presented relevant types of values, classifying them into four structures: self- transcendence (universalism and benevolence); conservation (conformity and tradition); self- reinforcement (power, achievement and hendoism), and openness to change (self-direction and stimulation). In the case of the latter structure, ^{Pettigrew (2007)} stated that the culture adjustment p rocess must take into account the context and content, thus involving the company’s economic, technological, social, structural and political environment.

From the perspective of ^{Schein (2004)}, culture consists of basic assumptions that a group invented, discovered or developed when learning how to deal with the problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and which worked well enough to be considered valid and taught to others members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel about these problems.

^{Berson, Oreg & Dvir (2005)} concluded that culture promotes organizational performance and that it is formed by the values of these CEOs. According to ^{Ginevicius & Vaitkunaite (2006)}, the dimensions of culture take on a broad form, which may include communication, management styles, strategies and goals, cooperation, innovation, adaptation, norms and rules, climate, power, vision, mission, autonomy (^{Lee & Jin, 2022}) among others. ^{Ahmed & Shafiq (2014)} concluded in their study that the dimensions of culture influence different perspectives of the organization, significantly the interdependence of management controls (^{Malmi et al., 2020}). However, ^{Malmi et al. (2020)} suggest, in research conducted in western cultural regions, that caution is needed when generalizing the impact of culture on management practices.

There are other studies that have connected corporate culture, values and norms to elements such as hierarchy and groups, and mainly to organizational performance (^{Chatman et al., 2014}; ^{Morgan & Vorhies, 2018}), as well as ensuring that culture conditions behavior and behavior influences culture, promoting conditions to face problems and improve performance (^{Fellows & Liu, 2013}).

^{Schein (2004)} stated that culture emerges from three sources. One concerns the beliefs, values and premises of the company’s founders; the second refers to the learning experiences of the group members and their involvement within the organization, and the last source is linked to new beliefs, values and premises incorporated by new members and leaders, which is explained by the fact that the company system is changeable and constantly adaptingits processes to the environment in which it is inserted.

In international business management, companies with foreign investment are susceptible to the cultural conditions of the company's country of origin, in this sense, studies point to the adoption of hybrid people management practices, considering the external and local culture (^{Ge & Zhao, 2020}; ^{Muhr, Holck & Just, 2022}).

To achieve success in his purposes in the business environment, the individual, as a manager, establishes a model for his management, according to which he will lead his team towards the goals to be achieved. At that moment, the company’s management model emerges, strictly aligned with its individual and collective culture and behaviors.

Business management models seem to have been, first of all, supported and systematized amid the philosophical bases of scientists and philosophers, such as René Descartes, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon, whose thoughts had a marked importance in the culture from which administrative theories emerged, influencing the construction of industrial society. ^{Fayol (1989)} already summarized the essential elements of management as being forecasting, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling.

^{Stoner & Freeman (1985)} and ^{Daft (2004)} developed the idea that an administration should stick to planning, organization, leadership and control. ^{Robbins (2006)} brought the same elements exposed by his precedents, classifying them in planning, organization, leadership and evaluation. With this same approach, ^{Steiner and Miner (1981)} treated the elements of management.^{Koch (2007)} developed a management philosophy, which mirrors a company’s management model according to five dimensions: vision; virtues and talents; knowledge processes; decision-making and incentives. ^{Cummings & Worley (2005)} exposed a model to diagnose the organizational system, classifying it in three levels: organizational, group and individual. Each has components that make it possible to analyze and issue final products.

From the analysis of the aspects treated in management models, analyzed and presented in Table 1, ^{Reginato and Guerreiro (2011)} dealt with the relationship between organizational culture and management control systems, whose elements can be contemplated: i) Organization: definition of the roles and responsibilities of each person in the company, power and authority, centralization and decentralization, management styles, organization chart; ii) Planning: the characteristics of the company’s planning process, its formalization, dissemination of selected strategies among managers, association between budget and planning and the degree of participation of managers in this process; iii) Execution: how the planned activities are carried out, involving the manager’s degree of autonomy, prioritization of objectives and whether the budget is used as a parameter to evaluate performance; iv) Control: how the results are monitored in relation to those planned, involving the understanding of the degree of commitment of the management and the accountability process; v) Technology and information systems: how these elements are used in the company to support its processes; vi) Performance evaluation process: the adoption of a formal performance process in the company, both global and individual; vi) Characteristics and skills of managers: the characteristics of the academic and professional training of managers and their technical capacity.

Table 1 shows the basis of this model, considering the main classic authors, chosen for the respective construct.

However, understanding the concept and evolution of the organizational culture, may not be enough to achieve success in this theme. It is also necessary to analyze the organizational and individual behavior, the theme of the next item. Furthermore, ^{Hofstede and McCrae (2004)} defended the existence of a correlation between personality traits and cultural dimensions, as proclaimed by ^{Quigley (1963)}.

Organization and individual behavior

Organizational behavior (OB), a subject in the field of study of human behavior in the organization (^{Griffin & Moorhead, 2010}).

Classifying and determining the elements of organizational behavior allows us to understand their relationships. In this sense, the proposed models are presented (^{Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002}; ^{Griffin & Moorhead, 2010}; ^{Feist, Feist & Roberts, 2013}) that determine the classification and elements of organizational behavior, namely: a) individual process and b) interpersonal process. As theoretical support, predominantly theories of personality and OB - Organizational Behavior. ^{Hofstede & McCrae (2004)} defended the existence of a correlation between personality traits and cultural dimensions, as proclaimed by ^{Quigley (1963)}.

Motivation

For ^{Robbins (2006, p. 151)}, “motivation is the process responsible for the intensity, direction and persistence of a person’s efforts to reach a certain goal”. Several theories have been created in order to understand how motivation is perceived and developed by individuals, such as the theory of two motivational factors, the theory of the hierarchy of needs, theory X and theory Y and theory of expectations (^{Robbins, 2006}).

The manager’s performance is influenced by the constant interaction of perceptions, emotions and motivation resulting from episodes recorded at work, managerial acts, recognition or attributed incentives and other aspects. The impacts noted on people’s perceptions, emotions and motivation occur when there is interaction among people in which, for example, the manager praises the subordinate, collaborates with him as if he were a colleague, makes the environment more pleasant and offers emotional support. Discussions among team members, meetings, appreciation of ideas, involvement in projects, achievement of goals and rewards, as well as any and all forms of incentives have an impact on the overall performance of the company (^{Amabile & Kramer, 2007}).

Stress

In 1936, Selye launched what was called the general adaptation syndrome, consisting of three phases (alarm reaction, adaptation phase, exhaustion phase) and with a clear biological dimension. This process was the object of studies and research, with emphasis on the systematization of ^{Vasconcelos (1992)} on the interconnections between cerebral cortex, hypothalamus, pituitary, adrenal glands and the resulting biochemical changes in the organism. To conceptualize, classify and base this behavior variable ^{Lazarus & Folkman (1984)}; (^{Bertalanffy, 1977}); ^{Marlach & Jackson (1981)}; ^{Sloan & Williams (1988)} launched concepts that emphasize the relevance of the stress factor in the business environment.

Stress at work contributes to inefficiency, high turnover of people, increased health care costs, accidents, decreased quality and quantity of production (^{Jex, 2014}; ^{Sadir & Lipp, 2009}).

Decision making

For ^{Simon (1965)} the efficiency in a company increases as less hierarchical levels exist through which an issue must pass until its final decision. The author’s guidance is for simplification, made possible through a process of decentralization of decisions. ^{Vecchio (2006)}, in contrast, explained about the possible disadvantages associated with decentralized structures.

^{Brousseau et al. (2006, p. 55)} contributes by indicating the following styles: decided manager; hierarchical; flexible and integrative. A manager can act at levels interspersed between one style or another, be simultaneously authoritarian and consultative, authoritarian in decision-making and consultative in the relationship with his subordinates (^{Likert, 1975}).

Extroversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness

These elements are part of the Eysenck’s five-factor model. The dimensions of the model were derived from collections in the 1960s, using different samples and classifications (^{Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002}).

^{Gerrig & Zimbardo (2002)} demonstrate the dimensions of the five-factor model. Extroversion concerns the definitions of communication, energy, assertiveness, shyness and reserved behavior; the openness to experience is composed of creativity, intellectuality, depth, intelligence, open and simple mind; and conscientiousness encompasses organization, responsibility, caution and fear, instability and irresponsibility. ^{Bueno, Oliveira & Oliveira (2001)} developed research that correlated skills and personality traits. The results showed a significant relationship between coping with risk and extraversion. Being aware of this, it can be inferred that individuals (managers), contemplated by extroversion traits may present a greater tendency to risk or complex decisions.

Teams

A working group points to how individuals perceive and are perceived by others as a social entity, interdependent because of the tasks they perform, and inserted in a larger social system, the organization, which is affected by the group’s performance (Guz zo & Dickson, 1996).

^{Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl (2000)}; ^{Tosi, Rizzo & Carroll (1995)}; ^{Nadler, Hackman & Lawler (1983)} complemented the construct of this behavioral variable, emphasizing that teams should be focused on the company’s planning, as they are the ones that promote organizational performance. In this direction, it is healthy to invest in the development of people, especially in the relationships they cultivate among them.

Communication

The communication discussion considers the information resource, as it is its main aspect of analysis. ^{Glautier & Underdown (1976)} stated that one of the merits of information is to provide the company with conditions for its managers to make appropriate decisions, through the efficient use of other resources, such as the human, the technological and the physical, which make up their company. The reasoning of authors is corroborated by ^{McGee & Prusak (1994)} and ^{Murdick & Ross (1975)}. Along this line, authors such as ^{Moscove, Simkin & Bagranoff (2002)} were also explored. For all of them, information is directly linked to the way it is communicated.

According to ^{Weick (1979)} and ^{Kreps (1990)} communication consists of the central process and the source of a company’s information. The definitions of organizational communication are divided into internal and external and formal and informal (^{Heide, Johansson & Simonsson, 2005}) and involve the effectiveness and strategy of organizational relationships.

Leadership: the role of the leader

^{Drucker (1977)} stated that many business failures are the result of ineffective leadership. According to him, leadership is a phenomenon of personal influence exercised in a given situation through the process of human communication, and the behavior of the leader involves multiple functions, such as: planning, informing, evaluating, controlling, motivating, recovering, punishing, etc.; to lead is essentially to guide the group, people, towards certain objectives or goals (^{Barnard, 1971}).

Studies by authors like ^{Lindzey (1940)}, for whom the leader is an important influencer in the company; ^{White & Lippitt (1960)}, who discussed leadership roles (autocratic, democratic and laissez faire); ^{Likert (1975)}, who characterized the administration system as authoritarian-strong, authoritarian- benevolent, participatory-consultative and participatory-group, supported the construction of the research. Leadership style, organizational culture, HR quality and job satisfaction, according to surveys by ^{Fachri, Paminto & Effendi (2021)} had a significant impact on the performance of collaborating employees.

Negotiation

Negotiation is the communication process with the purpose of reaching a pleasant agreement on different ideas and needs, which can affect any type of relationship, positively or negatively (^{Nierenberg, 1981}).

For this issue, the concepts and studies by ^{Fischer et al. (2005)}; ^{Hirata (2007)}; ^{Silveira (2006)} and ^{Calegari & Gemignani (2006)}; ^{Keirsey (2019)}; ^{Keirsey & Bates (1984)} contribute, given that who deal with stages and methodologies of negotiation in companies, and fundamentally with the importance of developing managerial skills that allow them to achieve maximum efficiency in negotiation.

Table 2 aims to summarize the references that served as a basis for the elaboration of the construct linked to the manager's behavior.

Analyzing the concepts presented in the theoretical framework, the main elements related to organizational culture and the characteristics of individual and interpersonal behavior are now presented and discussed. The mentioned elements pointed out in the literature suggest the management process (planning, execution and control, systems and technology, performance and profile evaluation, such as characteristics and skills of managers), while the characteristics of the managers consist of motivation, stress, decision making, extroversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, teams, communication, leadership and negotiation.

This construct was carefully built based on the literature exposed in this work.

Based on these notes, Figure 1 is presented, representing the aforementioned construct and the research hypothesis.

Source: from ^{Gerrig & Zimbardo (2002)}; ^{Griffin & Moorhead (2010)}; ^{Reginato & Guerreiro (2011)}; ^{Feist; Feist & Roberts (2013)}.

Figure 1. Research construct.  

The hypothesis of this study is set to explore the interplay between organizational culture and behavior of managers (H1 as in Figure 1), and is stated as H1: The elements of organizational culture are significantly related to the characteristics of managers’ behavior. In this sense, the effort of this research is centered on the application of the concepts of organizational culture and individual and interpersonal behavior, as presented in the method section.

General analysis: companies, respondents e variables

The companies followed the criteria of Exame “Maiores e Melhores 2019” magazine, in terms of financial indicators, such as sales, profits, and others, belonging to several geographic regions. A sectoral analysis was also carried out, taking as classification those from commerce, manufacturing and service sectors. Along these lines, the services sector predominated (the largest number of companies), followed by manufacturing and, finally, commerce.

When it comes to the profile of the managers who responded to the survey, it can be seen that a large portion holds positions of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Controller (controllership manager), which indicates alignment with the objective of this research. Figure 2 shows the stratification of the mentioned profile.

Source: elaborated by the authors.

Figure 2. Positions held by respondents.  

Survey respondents were also classified by gender, whose results indicated that 83% of the sample is male and 17% female. The average age among the 53 respondents was 51 years, with the minimum recorded being 32 and the maximum 62. Additionally, the time that the manager has worked in the company (tenure) was targeted by the questionnaire. In this regard, the maximum tenure corresponds to 37 years (position of CFO) and the minimum 2 years (position of Controller). Regarding the variables addressed in the study, it was deemed pertinent to represent the distribution of data by means of a boxplot, evidencing the respective results in Figure 3.

Source: elaborated by the authors.

Figure 3 Boxplot of study variables.  

It is observed that the greatest variability occurred with: Evaluation_Performance and openness to experience. The most prominent upper medians, which, consequently, indicated the attribution of higher scores on the scale, included control and decision making.

Consciousness appeared differently on the graph, showing symmetries in higher notes, while it also registered a greater number of outliers (6 companies). It is noted that there is a general tendency, in both constructs (culture and behavior), to assign scores above 5 for the tested sample.

Analysis of the organizational culture constructo

The scores related to the organizational culture construct were calculated and evidenced the results shown in Table 3. It should be noted that planning, execution and control belong to the management process element, while performance evaluation process and characteristics and skills of managers to the human relationship element (Figure 1).

The results indicated that the highest mean in the sample refers to control (7.6), followed immediately by technology and information systems (7.05), which means that companies are more committed by managers to monitor the results achieved, the managers justify to their superiors the deviations observed between the plans and respective achievements and participate in specific meetings to evaluate the results. In addition, 70% of the answers show that companies use integrated management systems and simulation systems, have flexibility in their reports, and use corporate software to prepare the budget.

The results related to control seem to follow a previous study by ^{Reginato (2010)}, which identified percentages between 60% and 80% for similar questions. On the other hand, when it comes to technology and information systems, findings of the present research show greater adoption of technology and systems by companies in comparison to ^{Reginato (2010)}, which showed that between 23% to 59% of companies adopted integrated and simulation systems making reporting more flexible to their users. With due limitations and differences between sample and period of both surveys, there seems to be an evolution in terms of technology and systems in large Brazilian companies.

The standard deviation of the variable control was the largest (furthest from the average), whereas the smallest deviation corresponds to the organization.

Following the analysis, there is the organization (6.98), the characteristics and skills of the managers (6.89), the planning (6.83), the execution (6.54) and the performance evaluation process (6.23), respectively. These numbers reflect that a reasonable part (above 60%) of the sample revealed an organizational culture permeated by a model composed of formal organization, established management process, adoption of information and performance evaluation systems, and appreciation of its human resources, as touted by classics like ^{Fayol (1989)}, ^{Stoner and Freeman (1985)}, ^{Daft (2004)}, ^{Robbins (2006)}. The results are aligned with the study taken as the basis for the present research ( ^{Reginato & Guerreiro, 2011}).

It noteworthy that in this relevant sample of the largest Brazilian companies, there are those without a formalized and fully defined model, and others that are in the process of implementation or change, which is reflected in the percentage of responses with scores between 1 and 5, for example.

Analysis of the construct behavior of the controllership manager

The scores related to the construct behavior of the controllership manager were calculated and results presented in Table 4.

Assessing the scores, it is clear that the highest averages are linked to decision making, conscientiousness and team. These numbers indicate that the managers of the surveyed companies are mostly prepared before making decisions, gathering information for a complete analysis, analyzing the impact of decisions in the global context of the company, dialoguing with their peers and creating future scenarios. In addition, the characteristics related to responsibility, participation and recognition of peers and teams are highlighted. The team item, which registered an average of 8.32, concerns people acting collectively and the responsible manager recognizing the individual and collective merits of each of its members. This finding may indicate a participatory style.

Otherwise, if this result is compared, mainly, with the characteristics and skills of managers and the performance evaluation process of the organizational culture construct, it can be inferred that in the view of the responding manager, he considers that he has a participatory and more accentuated recognition in relation to his team than the company has as a whole.

The lowest average (6.2) was in charge of stress, which shows that the manager may not have enough resources available to meet the demands of his work, there is a certain turnover of people in the team and in the company there is no full feeling of recognition and full appreciation of the health and quality of life of employees.

When the extremes are evaluated, the characteristics open to experience and negotiation receive the minimums (1.5 and 2.0), followed by motivation (3.75). On the other hand, the maximums are between 8.3 and 10, for all.