Innovation Cultural Models: Review and Proposal For Next Steps

Innovation Cultural Models: Review
and Proposal for Next Steps

Modelos culturales de innovación: revisión y
propuesta de siguientes pasos
Modelos culturais de inovação: revisão e
proposta de seguintes passos
Fran Morente*
Xavier Ferràs**
Ondřej Žižlavský***
Received: February 23, 2017
Approved: May 24, 2017
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/empresa/a.5433
Para citar: Morente, F., Ferràs, X., & Žižlavský, O. (2018). Innovation Cultural Models: Review and Proposal
for Next Steps. Universidad & Empresa, 20(34), 53-82. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.
edu.co/empresa/a.5433
*
Ph.D. student in Economy and Enterprise (Universitat de Vic), Master in Geography (Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona), Erasmus Summer in Urban Planning (Università IUAV di Venezia),
Postdegree in Environmental Analysis (Universitat de Barcelona), Postdegree course in Tech-
nology Watch (Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya), and Bachelor Degree in Environmental
Science (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona). Researcher in Universitat de Vic and Innovation
Partner in SUEZ. Carrer de la Sagrada Família, 7, 08500 Vic, Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail: franciscojose.morente@uvic.cat
**
Ph.D. in Economy and Enterprise (Universitat de Barcelona), MBA (ESADE) and Telecommuni-
cations Engineer (Universitat Politènica de Catalunya). Exdirector of ACC10 (Innovation Unit of
Government of Catalonia).Currently is innovation steering committee member, research, speaker,
and Dean of Universitat de Vic., Spain.
***
Ph.D. in Management and Economy, and Mechanic Engineer (Brno University of Technology).
Researcher and professor (Brno University of Technology), Czech Republic.
53
Innovation Cultural Models: Review and Proposal for Next Steps
ABSTRACT
An abundance of literature suggests a strong link between organization, culture, and innova-
tion. These three concepts cannot be understood separately. Since the eighties, when culture
began to be valued as a crucial factor by managers and scholars, several innovation cultural
models have been developed to help understand this link. The aim of this paper is to review
the most commonly used and applied theoretical models, analyze them, and propose several
new elements that must be integrated into future models. Through an intensive review of the
literature published between 1970 and 2016, we find seven main models, which we examine
to explore their internal mechanisms. Then we analyze them as a group to identify gaps that
need to be filled. As a result, our next steps proposals integrate concepts such as plurality,
dynamism, and complexity to broaden the definition of organization, culture and innovation.
New and far-better innovation cultural models are still to come.
Keywords: Innovation, culture, organization, innovation cultural model, subculture.
RESUMEN
Existe abundante literatura que sugiere un fuerte vínculo entre organización, cultura e in-
novación. Estos tres conceptos no pueden ser entendidos de manera independiente. Desde
la década de los 80, cuando la cultura comenzó a ser reconocida como un factor crucial por
administradores y académicos, varios modelos culturales de innovación han sido desarrolla-
dos para entender este vínculo. El objetivo de este documento es revisar los modelos teóricos
más usados, analizarlos y proponer nuevos elementos que deban ser integrados en modelos
futuros. A través de una extensa revisión de literatura de 1970 a 2016 encontramos siete mo-
delos principales que fueron analizados para conocer su mecanismo interno; después, fueron
analizados en conjunto para encontrar vacíos que requerían ser llenados. Como resultado,
nuestra propuesta de Siguientes Pasos busca integrar conceptos como pluralismo, dinamismo
y complejidad, para así complementar la definición de organización, cultura e innovación.
Nuevos y mejores Modelos Culturales de Innovación están por venir.
Palabras clave: Innovación, cultura, organización, modelo cultural de innovación, subcultura.
RESUMO
Abundante literatura sugere o forte vínculo entre organização, cultura e inovação. Estes três
conceitos não podem ser entendidos de forma independente. Desde a década dos 80, quando
a cultura começou a ser reconhecida como um fator crucial por administradores e acadê-
micos, diversos Modelos Culturais de Inovação têm sido desenvolvidos para entender este
vínculo. O objetivo deste documento é revisar os modelos teóricos mais usados, analisá-los
e propor novos elementos que devam ser integrados em modelos futuros. Através de uma
extensa revisão de literatura de 1970 a 2016 encontramos sete modelos principais que fo-
ram analisados para conhecer seu mecanismo interno. Em seguida, foram analisados em
conjunto para encontrar vazios que requeriam ser enchidos. Como resultado, nossa proposta
de Seguintes Passos busca integrar conceitos como pluralismo, dinamismo e complexidade
para assim complementar a definição de organização, cultura e inovação. Novos e melhores
Modelos Culturais de Inovação estão por vir.
Palavras-chave: Inovação, cultura, organização, modelo ultural de inovação, subcultura.
Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

54
Fran Morente, Xavier Ferràs, Ondřej Žižlavský
INTRODUCTION ground, as simple resource or fa-

cilitator of these processes (Casey,
Critical widespread concepts: 2002). To understand organization
culture, organization, innovation in depth, the culture must be inclu-
ded (Ouchi, 1982; Casey, 2002; Mo-
The literature about organization, rrill, 2008; Rodriguez Garay, 2009),
culture and innovation is endless. because an organization without
‘Culture’, ‘organization’, and ‘in- sociocultural ends, it is reduced to
novation’ are very widespread con- no more than a technical apparatus
cepts that, for this very reason, have (Casey, 2002).
very vague definitions. There is no
consensus on what ‘organization’ is Then, the concept of ‘culture’ co-
(Casey, 2002; McAuley, Duberley, mes from cultural anthropology
& Johnson 2007), neither on the and has been included in the last
meaning of ‘culture’ (Giddens & three decades (Morrill, 2008) in be-
Sutton, 2015), nor on the meaning havioral theories in organizations,
of ‘innovation’ (Sharifirad, & Ataei, marketing, management (Hogan, &
2012). A quick search of ‘innova- Coote, 2014) and innovation (Na-
tion cultural model’, where these ranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez,
three keywords collide, on Questia & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Although the-
(Questia.com) returns us 2,227 re- re is no universal consensus in de-
sults of heterogeneity. fining organizational culture, terms
such as holistic, historically deter-
However, many scholars suggest at- mined, anthropological, socially
tributes with which we can characte- constructed, soft, and difficult to
rize, albeit roughly, these concepts. change are often applied (McCar-
thy, 2013). For many papers –to
In first term, the meaning of ‘orga- cite a few: Yang and Hsu (2010),
nization’ establishes the compulsory Sharifirad and Ataei (2012) or Büs-
existence of an objective (Mayntz, chgens Bausch and Ball (2013)–
1980; Daft, 2013), administrative- the unavoidable reference is the
economic goals (Casey, 2002) and approach of Barney in ‘Organiza-
the logical ordering of processes, tional Culture: Can it be a source of
resources, and people in the same sustained competitive advantage?’
direction (McAuley, Duberley, & (1986); Barney defines organiza-
Johnson 2007). Such rationalist and tional culture as a complex set of
instrumental imperatives often leave shared values, beliefs, assumption
organizational agents in the back- and symbols that differentiate one

55
organization from another, carry implementation of a new or signi-

out the development of its business, ficantly improved product (good or
and add sustained competitive ad- service), or process, a new marke-
vantage. Thus, culture must be ting method, or a new organizatio-
considered as an active for the sur- nal method in business practices,
vival of the organization (Olivares workplace organization or external
Farías, 2013) and can provide cla- relations” (OECD, 2005, p. 46).
rification to the elusive concept of
‘innovation’ (Jaskyte, 2004). A strong link
Finally, the concept of ‘innova- Despite the semantical difficulties,

tion’. More than 30 years ago, van there is no doubt about the strong
der Koy (1988) examined almost link between them; various authors,
eighty definitions of innovation. In- different perspectives, and empiri-
novation is considered as essential cal studies support this strong link
for the organizations (Kim, 1980; between organization, culture, and
Rothwell, 1994; Zahra, & Covin, innovation (Tushman, & O’Reilly,
1994; Porter, 1996; Hamel, 2007; 1997; Naranjo-Valencia, 2012). Cul-
Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook., ture shapes behaviors and drive
2009; Gaglio, 2011; Jiménez-Jimé- desires (Hofstede, 2001; Schein,
nez, & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Ryan, & 2004), which is a critical factor
Tipu, 2013) nevertheless, given the for the innovation carried out by
use and abuse this word, there is no the organization (Naranjo-Valencia,
such thing as a definitive definition Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle,
(Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook, 2012), focusing on the stimulation
2009). Through the literature, two of a common commitment, fostering
are the most recurrent. The first one innovative attitude and internali-
comes from Schumpeter, which zing new values to push the crea-
defines innovation as creative des- tion of novelties (Hartmann, 2006).
truction, that means a destructi- For Feldman (1988) and Tushman
ve force that destroys the current and O’Reilly (1997), organizational
market conditions, and at the same culture is the core of innovation;
time creates new ones through new both concepts cannot be unders-
combinations (Iwai, 1984; Gaglio, tood separately, because they are
2011). The second one is the defi- the very substance of organization.
nition stablished by the OECD Ma- Quality of innovation is intimately
nual (Organization for Economic linked to the organizational culture:
Co-Operation and Development), culture and their basic elements -sha-
which consider innovation as “the red values, beliefs and behaviors-

56
influence innovation (Michela, and ral elements that must be included

Burke, 2000). in future ICMs.
The late-seventies marks a cultural 1. METHOD

turn with the exhaustion of the Ame-
rican organizational frameworks The method applied is an intensive
and the renovated interest in Ger- literature review, documental and
man and Japanese strong cultural theoretical, to find the most com-
frameworks (Morrill, 2008; Rodri- monly used theoretical ICMs. The
guez Garay, 2009). In the eighties,
data bases explored were Dialnet,
as an alternative view of the instru-
Scielo, ABI Inform Emerald and
mental and functional literature –the
Science Direct. The chosen period
means-end thinking–, the organiza-
was from 1970 to 2016. With the ob-
tion tend to be perceive as a socia-
jective to find the main ICMS, the ca-
lly constructed systems of meaning
tegories that we searched were some
(Morrill, 2008). From 1982, the or-
permutation of our three main words:
ganizational year par excellence, in
‘innovation’ + ‘culture’, ‘innova-
which published ‘Theory Z’ (Ouchi,
tion’ + ‘organization’, ‘innovation’
1982), ‘In Search of Excellence’
+ ‘organizational culture’, ‘innova-
(Peters and Waterman, 1982) and
‘The Rites and Rituals of Corporate tion cultural model’, and so on.
Life’ (Deal, & Kennedy, 1982), the
interest in cultures takes shape as a We understand for ICMs a theore-
central topic in the Organizational tical framework, which usefulness
Theory. Starting from that, the In- relay on their capacity to give a diag-
novation Cultural Models (ICMs) nosis of the culture, and allow the
arise as the most common and usual decision-maker to define and deploy
theoretical methods to explain the strategies to modify behaviors in or-
strong link between organization, der to enhance innovation-friendly-
culture, and innovation (Büschgens, attitudes. The ICMs help to get a
Bausch, & Ball 2013). general idea of the innovation cultu-
re of the organization; what comes
Aim later –for instance, an open ecosys-
tem, and stimuli to employees, etc.–
Thus, the main aim of this paper is a direct consequence of this diag-
is To review the most commonly nosis. Innovation culture that are
used and applied theoretical ICMs, not theoretical models used in scien-
analyze them, and to propose seve- tific literature are not included: open

57
innovation culture (Lego, Whirl- Hofstede crystallized his experien-

pool), innovation ecosystem culture ces in ‘Culture’s Consequences:
(Alphabet, Apple) or Japanese inno- International Differences in Work-
vation culture examples (Kaikaku, Related Values’ (1984), in which
Hoshin Kanri, Toyota Kata), becau- he postulated four basic dimensions
se, in despite of their great interest, to describe the different values that
they are not the same thing, and any shape forty national cultures. Com-
comparison would be sterile. paring the national culture with the
organizational culture with a com-
As a result, we found seven theoreti- prehensive statistical analysis of
cal ICMs, which we deepened in its surveys to IBM -117,000 emplo-
internal explanatory mechanism of yees in over 40 countries- (Mag-
the organizational culture of innova- nusson, Wilson, Zdravkovic, Xin
tion to understand its strengths and Zhou, & Westjohn, 2008), as ex-
weakness. Known in detail, we can plained on its website, statistical
proposed new elements to include analysis showed that national cultu-
in further theoretical developments. ral differences could only be due to
the values, practically unconscious.
2. RESULTS To the initial four dimensions, be-
cause of his collaboration with
2.1. Hofstede Bond –in the 90s– and Minkov –in
the 2010s–, two more have been
After more than two decades wor- added. The model is the following
king on national cultures, Geert (figure 1):
Figure 1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
- +
Equality Power distance Inequality
Risk tolerant Uncertainty avoidance Risk intolerant
Collectivistic Individualism Individualistic
Collaboration & Power &

Feminity/masculinity
cooperation competitiveness
Tradition & short
Time perspective Future & long term
term
Normative repression Restraint vs indulgence Free satisfaction
Source: Hofstede, (online).

58
According to Geert Hofstede ( on- short-term cultures, on the other

line), the six dimensions are: hand, prefer pride, tradition, and
fulfillment of social norms.
1. Power Distance: with great dis- 6. Restraint vs Indulgence: by in-
tance from power, people, or- dulgent, Hofstede means ease
ganizations or institutions will of freely satisfying the most
accept hierarchies and inequali- basic human impulses related
ties; on the contrary, with little to passion for life. In restricti-
distance power is shared among ve cultures, the satisfactions are
the members of the social struc- suppressed and regulated
ture. through norms.
2. Uncertainty: risk-intolerant cul-
tures will seek above all to mi- Taking into the account these di-
nimize risks and fears through mensions, Hofstede give relative
laws and regulation. At the other scores to the cultures and, thanks
extreme, with minimum rules to this scale, facilitates comparison
stipulating socialization, the risk- between them. These indexes tend
tolerant cultures will be tolerant, to be fairly stable over time, and
relativistic and opportunistic. when cultural changes occur they
3. Individualism: it indicates the are often global, so even though
consistency of social ties. In in- certain dimensions vary, overall, po-
dividualistic cultures, each per- sitions between countries are main-
sonal will have particular goals tained. In addition, what is even
and needs. In cultures with sen- more important: the six dimensions
se of community, people will are statistically correlated. For Ho-
tend to the common benefit and fstede, culture is a software, and it
shared goals to the detriment of can be understood as those common
individual benefits. elements of mental programming in
4. Feminity/Masculinity: the mas- a particular environment which ma-
culine attitude will be expedi- nifestation is through socially cons-
tious, competitive, assertive, tructed institutions, families, groups,
focused on goals and the search and organizations (Hofstede, 1991).
for power; the feminine attitude
will be focus on friendship, co- Taking into the account the deep
llaboration and cooperation. roots of cultures, Hofstede make
5. Time Perspective: cultures with some critical statements: social in-
long-term orientation work prag- equality is greatest in countries of
matically towards future reward; South America, Asia and Africa;

59
the Chinese, Anglo-American and 2008). Among them, Hofstede has

Nordic are the most risk tolerant; the more numerous and consistent
individualism prevails in the West, empirical validity (Efrat, 2014).
unlike in the East; Japan, Germany,
Austria and Switzerland are male, 2.2. Schein
and Spain, France and Thailand
are female; the English-speaking Unlike the previous ICM that take
and Arab world focus on the short the culture as a unique construct, as
term, Asia on the long; indulgence a whole (Hogan & Coote, 2014),
scores highest in Latin America, the Edgar Schein considers in his clas-
United States and northern Euro- sic ‘Organizational Culture and
pe, the restriction in the East and Leadership’ (first edition, 1992)
East Asian bloc. So the organiza- that the main problems of the mo-
tion. Therefore, organization ba- dern organization in relation with
sed in these regions must take into culture is due to the lack of distinc-
the account the elements that will tion between the different levels in
molder the attitude of their emplo- which culture manifest itself. Hen-
yees towards innovation. Certain ce, Schein (2004) proposes his three
features as risk tolerant, democra- level –level as the degree by which
tic, masculine and indulgent are the a given cultural phenomenon is visi-
marks of an innovation attitude ble to the researcher– of culture mo-
(Hofstede, [online]). del of Schein (2004), or also known
as the multi-layered organizational
According to him, cultural changes culture model (MOCM) (figure 2).
are provoked by changes in practi-
ces; these changes will enable chan- The three levels are:
ges, in the broadest sense, in social
groups. As McCarthy (2013) states, 1. Artifacts: by artifact, Schein
the malleability of its adaptation to means the visible cultural pro-
different social structures is what rai- ducts of as organization, such
ses the academic interest for its appli- as: spatial distribution, langua-
cation in organization in relation to ge, technology, style, clothing,
attributes such as efficiency and in- manners, expressions, or to put it
novation. There are similar models briefly: the surface of the reality,
–such as Schwartz and Trompena- the visible behavior of its mem-
ars–, but the proposed dimensions bers. The artifacts also includes
to characterize cultural identities the organizational processes by
are different (Magnusson, Wilson, which behaviors become routi-
Zdravkovic, Xin Zhou, & Westjohn, nes.

60
Figure 2. Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Culture Model
Visible
Organizational structure
ARTIFACTS and processes.
Strategies, goals,
VALUES philosophies,
justifications.
Perceptions, beliefs,
ASSUMPTIONS thoughts, feelings.
Invisible
Source: Schein (2004).
2. Values: a value is confirmed for granted, as DNA. In Argyris’

only by the shared experience of terminology, the assumptions
a group. If it is accepted, firstly would be the theories-in-use, so
it will become a shared value implicit in each member way
and, as it becomes embodied and of acting, thinking, interpreting,
used in the everyday life, it will feeling, and interacting. The dee-
become an assumption: it will be pest level is hard to modify, as it
included in the taken for gran- provides ontological security;
ted. Cultural elements included whatever on the opposite site, it
in these levels are cognitive pro- produce anxiety and fear.
cesses, commitments, consensu-
ses, ethics, ideologies, strategies, In MOCM, the manager is a key
knowledge, visions, etc. Values part of the innovation culture;
cannot be directly observed, but Schein encourages a strong leader-
they can be distilled from what ship to cope the divisionalization,
their members explain and how the excessive inner-differentiation
they do justify. –hierarchy and goals–, and geogra-
3. Assumptions: unconsciously, the phic decentralization. The anthro-
underlying assumptions are taken pological model of Schein focuses,

61
in particular, on manager’s leader- research on organizational culture

ship and skills to lead the cultural of innovation (Naranjo-Valencia,
change towards innovation attitu- Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle,
ted. Artifacts can model daily routi- 2012). This model offers a simple
nes and practices, shifting behavior diagnosis to describe the organiza-
patterns that enable innovation to tional culture, fundamental to begin,
the members of the organization, if necessary, the slow organizatio-
for instance, new ways of doing nal cultural change to face external
their work (Hogan, & Coote, 2014). forces (Cameron, & Quinn, 1999).
If culture is an abstraction of or- Based on Campbell’s 1970s work,
ganizational forces, these forces which compiled 39 indicators of
must be understood and mastered organizational effectiveness, Quinn
(Schein, 2004). and Rohrbaugh (1983) went one-
step further. Thanks to the statistical
2.3. Cameron & Quinn treatment, they identified two large
dimensions and four quadrants. In
The Competing Values Model the latest version, Cameron Quinn,
(CVM), in its original version Degraff and Thakor (2006) added two
(Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) and secondary dimensions. Therefore,
its most widespread adaptation (Ca- four dimensions and four quadrants
meron, & Quinn, 1999), is one of compose the CVM; in the middle,
the most used models in empirical the competing values map (figure 3).
Figure 3. Cameron & Quinn’s Competing Values Model
Flexibility & Discretion

Long-term Transformational
change change
CLAN ADHOCRACY
Internal focus & External focus &

Integration differentation
HIERARCHY MARKET
Incremental Fast change

change
Stability & control
Source: Cameron, Quinn, Degraff & Thakor (2006).

62
The CVM is composed by cultural b. Clan: emphasis on flexibility,

dimensions and the competing va- autonomy, collaboration, and
lues map: participation. Preponderan-
ce of interpersonal cohesion,
1. Cultural dimensions is compo-
commitment, shared values,
sed by four axis:
collective goals, loyalty and
a. Internal/External focus: axis affective bonds. Search for
that describes intensity of or- human and professional de-
ganizational focus: partners velopment. The leader is a
& customers vs organizatio- mentor.
nal agents & processes. c. Market: control, but focused
b. Flexibility/Stability: axis that on value exchange. Exter-
describes who take decisions: nal and internal relations are
top-down vs bottom-up. weighted in terms of market.
c. Speed of change: axis that High competition between or-
describes the speed of chan- ganizational agents. Stability
ge: long-term vs fast. and profitability goals. Re-
d. Degree of change: axis that sults-oriented and consolidate
describes the degree of chan- achievements. The leader is a
ge: incremental vs transfor- manager.
mational. d. Adhocracy: maximum flexi-
The combination of these four bility, agility, dynamism an
axis demarcates a representatio- interdependence that enable
nal space with four types of cul- adaption to change. Empowe-
ture: red teams that work with pro-
2. Competing Values map is com- totyping methodologies and
posed by four quadrants/cultures: new resources addressed to
new challenges. Creativity,
a. Hierarchy: the classic ap-
innovation and risk toleran-
proach to power demonstra-
ce. The leader is a visionary
tions. Orientation to results
or an entrepreneur.
and maximum efficiency.
Rigid organization based on To determine the type of culture, the
roles and positions, which CVM use the Organizational Cultu-
are translated into policies, re Assessment Instrument (OCAI),
procedures and norms. Strict a simple but revealing six-category
and close to Weberian bu- survey. Based on these six categories,
reaucratization where reigns 100 points are distributed among
the cultural uniformity and these four types of culture that opens
the manager as the leader. organization to a different level of

63
analytical depth. The OCAI has been hesion and freedom, united through
used by more than 10,000 organi- culture and innovation as elements
zations worldwide. Each culture, in of company survival. Denison was
some ways antagonistic, contains un- created and tested his multidimen-
derlying attributes, as type of mana- sional Denison Organizational Cul-
gement, work climate, roles, cultural ture Survey (DOCS) in collaboration
changes, strategic rewards system, with Neale, Fey, Haaland, Goelzer,
norms, socialization, leadership, etc. Hooijberg, Nieminen, Mishra, Lief
Due to their cultural congruence, and Hart, among others (figure 4).
which means that several aspects of
an organization are interdependent DOCS divides culture in four es-
and aligned, we can recognized the sential traits –mission, adaptability,
main attributes and, then, find new consistency, involvement–, each one
alternative cultural configuration with three associated management
beneficial to the organization’s in- practices, and two axis (Denison,
novation (Cameron, & Quinn, 1999; Hooijberg, Lane, & Lief, 2012). The
Cameron, Quinn, Degraff, & Thakor, elements are:
2006; Büschgens, Bausch, & Ball,
2013). In these typologies, Google is 1. Four traits:
‘adhocractic’, McDonalds ‘hierar- a. Adaptability (I): organiza-
chical’, General Electrics ‘market’, tion listens and respond en-
and Nokia ‘clan’ (Cameron, Quinn, vironment, customers, and
Degraff, & Thakor, 2006). As Naran- markets reconfiguring their
jo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez and internal structure.
Sanz-Valle, (2012) suggest the adho- i. Creating change: open
cratic culture, that means, flexibility, minded behavior to assess
freedom and external orientation, new ideas, practices, and
would be the better cultural configu- opportunities.
ration to deploy innovation. ii. Customer focus: need to
serve internal and exter-
2.4. Denison nal customers’ needs.
iii. Organizational learning:
For Daniel R. Denison (2001) two gain knowledge trough
are the main functions of organiza- successes and fails.
tional culture: keeping the organi- b. Mission (II): organization
zation together while being a fun- communicates to organiza-
damental part of its transformative tional agents, which are the
movement (Denison, & Neale, 1994, values, the goals and the co-
2000). Statism and dynamism, collective mission.

64
i. Strategic direction: strate- d. Involvement (IV): sense of

gies and priorities deplo- ownership and responsibility
yed into concrete actions. grows around commitment,
ii. Goals & objectives: daily autonomy, and trust.
individual goals, and how i. Capability development:
they contribute to collec- training and coaching to
tive goals. prepare for new respon-
iii. Vision: the purpose to sibilities.
achieve. ii. Team orientation: capture
c. Consistency (III): source of new ideas to achieve co-
integration, coordination and llective goals.
control to raise an operative iii. Empowerment: competen-
governance from consensus. ce and freedom to clarify
i. Coordination & integra- responsibilities.
tion: understanding of
individual work as an in- 2. Two axis:
tegrated part of a whole. a. Vertical: focus on internal
ii. Agreement: collective con- environment or focus on ex-
sensus through dialogue. ternal actions.
iii. Core Values: set of va- b. Horizontal - flexible vs sta-
lues that help to make ble: focus on freedom and
consistent decisions and innovation or focus on order
actions. and stability.
Figure 4. Denison Organizational Culture Survey

EXTERNAL FOCUS
Organizational Strategic
I ADAPTABILITY
Learning Direction MISSION
II
Customer Goals &
focus Objectives
Creating Vision
change
BELIEFS &
FLEXIBLE STABLE
ASSUMPTIONS Coordination
Empowerment &
Integration
Team
Orientation Agreement
INVOLVEMENT Capability Core CONSISTENCY

Development Values
III IV
INTERNAL FOCUS
Source: Denison Consulting, (online).

65
DOCS consists in four big traits, of organizational cultures, which

two axis, and twelve management depend heavily on the social interac-
practices. Each of these practices tion between organizational agents,
has a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 ‘ab- its values, and its motivation, and
solute disagreement’ and 5 ‘total the way in which the structural
agreement’ (Denison, 2001; Fey, & power is used. Every organization
Denison, 2003; Denison, Hooijberg, has four types of culture (Harrison,
Lane, & Lief , 2012). The assessment & Stokes, 1992):
of these items are compared with a
large database where the results of 1. Role: culture characterized by
other organizations can be found. detailed descriptions of task,
Depending on that, the organizational high specialization, and focus
culture will be characterized. Over on rationalization, optimization,
20 years, DOCS has been applied to and internal consistency. Norms,
over 5,000 organizations worldwide: control, and procedures to regu-
HP, NASA, JetBlue Airways, ABC late interactions and to delimit
Disney, Northorp Grumman, RJ what is allowed and what is not.
Reynolds, the Defensive Logistics According McCarthy (2013),
Agency, etc. (Denison Consulting, these static cultures do not mo-
[online]). This fact is motivated by bilize resources and emotions
its easy application, which makes it towards the innovation attitude.
one of the most widespread models 2. Achievement: a team of experts
(Kokina, & Ostrovska, 2013), and put their efforts toward a stra-
with Cameron & Quinn one of the tegic objective that are beyond
most recurring tools of analysis of the self-interest of their parti-
the innovation organizational culture cular members. To achieve in-
(Sackmann, 2011). novation goals, punishment and
rewards are alternated to encou-
2.5. Harrison & Stokes rage certain behaviours.
3. Power: power, as a distance bet-
Harrison & Stokes model (1992) ween –High Direction– and pe-
has played an important role in or- ripheries –rest of organizational
ganizational thinking (McCarthy, units–, is unequal, hierarchical,
2013, Manetje, & Martins, 2009). centralized, radiocentric. Centra-
This model has a four-dimension lized power reduce agential auto-
conceptualization of organizational nomy and, therefore, innovation.
culture (figure 5). 4. Support: the commitment are the
The model distinguishes four types pillar of the organization, between

66
agents and organization –glo- at the same time, as Manetje and

bal level– and between agents Martins (2009) point out describe
–particular level–. Agents work the distance between agents and
for their own self-satisfaction their engagement towards the orga-
and for a general purpose. Co- nizational culture.
llaboration, cooperation, and
coordination are strongly pro- 2.6. Deal & Kennedy
moted.
Deal and Kennedy (1982) define
The model diagnoses the organiza- four types of organizational cultu-
tional culture (Harrison, 1993), but res (figure 6).
Figure 5. Harrison & Stokes Model
High
Formalisation
High ROLE ACHIEVEMENT Low

Centralisation Centralisation
POWER SUPPORT
Low
Formalisation
Source: Manetje & Martins (2009).
Figure 6. Deal & Kennedy Model
Fast
WORK HARD
THOUGH-GUY
PLAY HARD
Feedback Speed
MACHO CULTURE
CULTURE
BET-YOUR-
PROCESS
COMPANY
CULTURE
CULTURE
Slow
Low Degree of Risk High
Source: Deal & Kennedy (1982).

67
Six elements are identified on the 2. Though-Guy Macho Culture:

two axis –feedback speed and degree aggressive and competitive in-
of risk– (Deal, & Kennedy, 1982): dividuals who execute quickly
and expeditiously, in organiza-
1. History: narrative and cultural tions where risk and economic
guide socially constructed and reward reign. Individualism
shared by organizational agents. has repercussions on internal
2. Beliefs & Values: deep assump- conflicts and a narrow short-
tions that shape values. term vision. Collaboration are
3. Rituals: recurrent collective ac- unknown; isolated, innova-
tions to create identity. tion is a result of an individual
4. Stories: anecdotes, small stories effort.
that implies commitment to lar- 3. Process Culture: a highly bu-
ger cultural elements. reaucratized organization whe-
5. Heroes: role models for their re the focus is in the execution
uprightness and compliance with without reflection. Mechanistic
organizational culture. culture, far from the market,
6. Informal Cultural Network: cul- society, and made up by inter-
tural dissemination of everyday changeable workers. No inno-
life through storytellers, gossi- vation, if it is a deviance from
pers, whisperer, spies, and priests. the normality.
4. Bet-Your-Company Culture: im-
Following these six elements, Deal portant strategic decisions with
and Kennedy (1982) describe four a high degree of uncertainty.
cultures: Long-term projects with a high
resources allocated, but whose
1. Work Hard-Play Hard Cultu- results are known only a great
re: stability and persistence are deal of time after. The decision
the values, so feedback is given points becomes very relevant.
immediately. Teamwork and co- Innovation, as a matter of suc-
llective commitment abound. It cess or failure, is an important
matters more the sum of people variable.
than a single individual does.
It is a common culture in lar- In spite of its simplicity, the model
ge corporations where low risk shows the organization as a human
levels disperse objectives into structure where innovation has its
operational requirements. Inno- origin in the collaboration (Deal, &
vation is not a priority. Kennedy, 1982).

68
2.7. Hatch & Schultz and dynamic balance between, on

the one hand, the external envi-
In the Organizational Identity Dy- ronment and the relationship with
namics Model (OIDM) of Mary Jo the stakeholders and, on the other
Hatch and Majken Schultz (2009) hand, the internal organizational
‘identity’ results from the unstable structure (figure 7).
Figure 7. Organizational Identity Dynamics Model
Culture We Identify Us Image
Source: Hatch & Schultz (2009).
In-and-out, answer-and-listen are The authors defines two extreme

merged in a continuum. Identi- moments:
ty expresses culture, and identi-
ty mirrors the images of others; a. Narcissism: the maximum pro-
identity leaves impressions on jection of the identity towards
others, internal and external, and the outside –Enron, as example–.
they embedded their values in the b. Hyperadaptation: the internal
identity. Therefore, as Hatch and transformation by external in-
Schultz (2009) suggest, identity is fluence –AT&T, as example–.
a fragile negotiation, and to main-
tain a healthy equilibrium external Undesirable extremes that can lead
requests need to be balanced with to destruction. When organizational
internal responses. One example culture responds to external influen-
is Toyota; it not only listen their ce, as innovation opportunities, the
ecosystem of innovation, but, in organization will show its alignment
the chesbroughian way of open between its culture and the projec-
innovation, it projects its image to ted image outside the organizational
transfer its values and aspirations. boundaries (Hatch, & Schultz, 2009).

69
2.8. Others ICMs vation can be infinite, as it is at the

mercy of scholars’ imagination. In
The list of theoretical ICMs could addition to the main ICMs already
be broad, endless as Denison (1996) exposed, we show a sample of other
argues. The number of cultural va- cultural models applied innovation
lues, factors, and variables of an culture (table 1).
organization associated with inno-
Table 1. Others ICMs
Authors ICM
Weisbord, 1976 Six-Box Model
Ouchi and Jaeger, 1978; Ouchi, 1979 Organizational Control Model
O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell, 1991 Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)
Johnson and Scholes, 1992 Cultural Web
Weick, 1995 Sensemaking Model
Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996 Factors of the Organizational Culture
Schwartz, 1992, 1999 Schwartz Model
Nonaka, Toyama and Konno, 2000 SECI Model
Source: Own elaboration.
3. DISCUSSION organizations’, whose success and

survival depends on creativity and
3.1. Analysis innovation, emphasize this strong
link. For this reason, managers seek
After this review, where we exami- to create and to promote an un-
ned the theoretical ICMs, we proce- derlying innovation culture through
eded to analyze together. In ICMs, which inoculate certain assumptions,
complex relationship, interactions values, and beliefs to encourage
and dependencies are established positive behaviors towards innova-
between organization, culture, and tion. In this panorama, the scholars,
innovation (Naranjo-Valencia, Jimé- as we have seen, prefer theoretical
nez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle, 2012). models development, where inno-
Martins and Terblanche (2003), who vation, culture and organization
called companies ‘knowledge-based are embedded and grounded upon

70
different variables. These models gens, Bausch, & Ball, 2013). Due to
seek to classify cultural elements to the obvious conceptual differences
highlight resonance and comparisons between ICMs, all of them have
based on clear criteria, explaining been analyzed through a Strength
the not-so-often obvious cultural & Weakness Analysis, being ‘stren-
pattern that emerge from the di- gths’ the strong points and the
mensions of organizations (Büsch- ‘weakness’, their flaws (table 2):
Table 2. Strength & Weakness Analysis
ICM Strength Weakness
- Strong cultural characterizations - Agential oversimplification

Hofstede - Cultural congruence - Innovation as a derivation
- Rooted in empirical research - Static culture
- Cultural stratification
- Top-down cultural production
- Conceptual framework to manage
Schein - No insights about innovation culture
organizational culture
- Agential oversimplification
- Cultural production
- Cultural congruence
Cameron - Overall characterization of culture
- Insights about innovation culture
& Quinn - No modes of action
- Rooted in empirical research
- Strong cultural characterization

- Overall characterization of culture
- Insights about innovation culture
Denison - Organizational homogeneity
- Comparative with other
- No modes of action
organizational cultures
- Power relations - Cultural typologies are adaptations of

Harrison - Everyday life Mintzberg’s Six Basic Parts of Organization
& Stokes - Subcultures - Innovation oversimplification
- Insights about engagement - No modes of action
- Everyday life - Innovation as a derivation of other

Deal &
- Subcultures combinations
Kennedy
- Informality - Vague cultural congruence
Hatch & - Organization as an open system - Innovation as a derivation of the equilibrium

Schultz - Dynamic approach - Agential oversimplification
As a result of the Strength & of apprehension’. For ‘apprehen-

Weakness Analysis, we have done sion’ we mean, as Merriam-We-
a Three-Axis Analysis. In this bster Dictionary suggest, the act
analysis, each axis is a ‘capacity of perceiving or comprehending

71
something, grasping with unders- 2. Organization axis: capacity of

tanding and recognizing the deepest apprehension of the concept
conceptual implications. Therefo- of ‘organization’ by the ICM,
re, a better capacity of apprehen- being 1) ‘low’, 2) ‘medium’,
sion means that the concept is fully and 3)‘high’ capacity of appre-
apprehend, well understood in its hension. ICMs with ‘1’ means:
minor details and in its particular organization is conceptualize as
complexities. The axis have been a block, static, and undynamic.
(figure 8): On the contrary, ICMs with ‘3’
means: the concept of organiza-
1. Innovation axis: capacity of tion is complex, rich, changeful.
apprehension of the concept of 3. Culture axis: capacity of appre-
‘innovation’ by the ICM, being hension of the concept of ‘cultu-
1) ‘low’, 2) ‘medium’, and re’ by the ICM, being 1) ‘low’,
3)‘high’ capacity of apprehen- 2) ‘medium’, and 3) ‘high’ capa-
sion. ICMs with ‘1’ means: in- city of apprehension. ICMs with
novation is a derivation of other ‘1’ means: culture is seen as ho-
elements or a simplistic con- mogenous, structural, oversim-
ceptualization. On the contrary, plified. On the contrary, ICMs
ICMs with ‘3’ means: innova- with ‘3’ means: plurality, every-
tion is a critical and a complex day life and agents are taking
variable in the model. into the account.
Figure 8. Three-Axis Analysis
HATCH & SCHULTZ DEAL & KENNEDY

3
SCHEIN
HARRISON & CAMERON & QUINN
2
STOKES
HOFSTEDE DENISON
1
1 2 3
INNOVATION

72
These two analyses allow us to it is highly critical to refine ICMs

postulate the following facts: to enhance our capacity of appre-
hension. Following our Next Steps
1. It is fairly evident the strong link Proposals:
between organization, culture,
and innovation, and its relevance 1. On culture, two cultural aspects
for organizations survival. For should be considered.
more than three decades, diffe- a. In current ICMs prevail the
rent theoretical efforts have been culture as a tool to mold
made to conceptualize this link. agents’ behaviors in order to
2. Little is known, as Hogan and direct their actions to an ins-
Coote (2014) claim, about the trumental goal, in this case: an
characteristic of the ideal inno- innovation attitude. As Fine
vation culture. The ICMs are (1979) and Giddens (2003)
mainly focused on organization insist on culture is twofold:
culture; innovation is mainly producer of social interaction
inferred. and a product of this social in-
3. There is no such thing as a total teraction. The organizational
ICM that apprehend the strong agents are cultural molded,
link and the multiple interde- but, at the same time, they are
pendencies between conceptgs. producers of this culture. Cul-
The perfect ICM –‘3’ in each ture is freedom and mechani-
axis– does not exist yet. zation, predefined framework
and collective creation, and
Therefore, it seems necessary to we need to know how it is
make some proposals towards a to- produced.
tal ICM. b. The cultural homogeneity
–the same culture for all
3.2. Next steps proposals agents– is an illusion too
naïve. We must to distinguish
According to Godin (2015), a mo- what Van Maanen and Barley
del provides a conceptualization, a (1985) called ‘subcultures’;
narrative, a figure, a tool, and a pers- subcultures are separate cul-
pective, whose power is the creation tures from the discursive cul-
of images from everyday complexi- ture and exist in departments,
ty. ICMs, as a lens through which, groups, etc. The concept of
as scholar, we examine the reality, subcultures could help us to
need to deal with complexity. Thus, deepen our understanding

73
related the changing nature view. The socialization bet-

of the organizations and their ween (interchangeable, indis-
power stratification and plu- tinguishable) agents is oriented
rality; it could provide, also, only to achieve the supraor-
insight on the flexibility to ganizational objectives (Ca-
transform or to adapt the orga- sey, 2002). Therefore, the
nization and what are the inno- power of informality and non-
vation impulses and barriers productive time as a source
to implementation. of socialization should be in-
2. On organization, three organi- cluded. The productive side
zational aspects should be con- is just a part of the total orga-
sidered. nizational reality.
a. Currently dominates an over- 3. On innovation, two innovational
simplified view of the organi- aspects should be considered:
zation, where the complexity a. Innovation is not a mechanis-
of everyday life is suppres- tic process without subjects,
sed. The ICMs have little a milestone after milestone,
interest in social conflicts, where ideas become products
power dissymmetries and or services; on the contrary,
agents’ feelings and personal innovation is pure social in-
strategies. Organizations are teraction, at its highest le-
made up of a plurality of lo- vel of complexity (Gaglio,
gics (Lousbury, Ventresca, & 2011). For Alter (2013), in-
Hirsch, 2003; Dorado, 2013), novation would be consider
as well as fluctuation, diver- as a renewing, destructive,
sity and instability (Gioia, unstoppable, permanent and
Schultz, & Corley, 2000). living flux that transform
b. In the Open Innovation Era, social structures. It is time
organizations cannot be seen to leave theoretical clichés
as closed and static systems. associated with innovation.
The influence of the stakehol- Agents in coordination, coo-
ders ecosystem should be in- peration or opposition carry
tegrate as a fundamental part. out the process of innovation:
c. ICMs are too much focus on failure or success is a matter
structural level, which means of social forces. Agents are
high level of abstraction the blood of the organization,
–statistics, correlations– and and they carry the structural
instrumental driven oriented changes.

74
b. ICMs do not apprehend the taking into the account gender,

most powerful insight related economic class, age, race, etc.
to innovation: the deviance. Ethnography does not describe
From this point of view, in- but understand decoding cul-
novation is a deviation from ture-embedded forms and dis-
a given reality that breaks covering wider patterns in the
social regularity and predic- lebenswelt. We strongly support
tability and relativizes orga- ethnography as a method to un-
nizational norms. As a trans- tangle the organizational symbo-
gressive force that reshapes lic worlds.
reality, the real innovation
explores the unknown where A model is useful according to its
nothing is given. The innova- ability to penetrate reality and to
tors never act alone and they reveal the congruence between cul-
need adepts to reformulate ture, organization and innovation
norms and reverse the culture (Büschgens, Bausch, & Ball, 2013).
(Gaglio, 2011; Alter, 2013). If the model does not satisfy these
4. On methods: generalist surveys terms, it is time to go beyond. This
and quantitative interviews have is the Next Steps Proposals; further
been the main methods to captu- research must be carried on.
re raw data. This is insufficient
and narrow-minded. The deve- 5. CONCLUSIONS
lopment of intricate cultural ca-
tegories through huge data sets Certain conclusions can be drawn.
are OK, but the aim would be The comparison between ICMs is
understand the reality. This im- complicated due to each one is based
personal approach neglects per- on different empirical experience
sonal embodied experience and and, therefore, on different theo-
feelings. Although organizations retical constructions. Dimensions,
are remiss, ethnography is vital. quadrants or levels are a sample of
As Ladner (2014) points out, the heterogeneity of ICMs. Cultu-
ethnography capture direct data re, organization and innovation are
–people, actions, objects, etc.– three elusive concepts. The proli-
according to its real contexts. feration of many ICMs demonstra-
Assuming that social life is a dy- te the strong link between them and
namic force, the ethnographer’s its importance shaping performance
emic position help to unders- and social reality. Since the 1980s,
tand the agents’ point of view, culture has been integrated in the

75
Organization Theory’s corpus, tional life impedes a more detailed

bringing ontological relativism and research: only when we have ICMs
humanism to the hitherto rigid ins- faithful to reality, embracing the cha-
trumental conception of what an or- llenges of complexity and organiza-
ganization is. The social dimensions tional plurality, the interdependencies
have been revealed as a critical fac- between innovation, organization
tor to take it into the account; as Cro- and culture can be understood. The
zier and Friedberg states: “L’acteur future ICMs is ready-to-hand.
n’existe pas au-dehors du système
qui définit la liberté qui est sienne et REFERENCES
la rationalité qu’il peut utiliser dans
son action. Mais le système n’existe Alter, N. (2013). L’Innovation
que par l’acteur qui seul peut le por- Ordinaire. París: PUF.
ter et lui donner vie, et qui seul le Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sam-
peut changer” (Crozier, & Friedberg, brook, S. (2009). Towards a
1977, p. 11). However, the analysis Multidisciplinary Definition of
of the seven major ICMs suggests Innovation. Decision, 47(8),
that, despite their undeniable theo- 1323-1339.
retical and practical achievements, Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sam-
they lack some qualitative sensitivi- brook, S. (2009). Towards a Multi-
ty, compulsory to dissect innovation, disciplinary Definition of Innova-
organization, and culture as a total tion. Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.
social phenomena; as the literature Barney, J. (1986). Organizational
asserts, the current analytical depth Culture: Can it be a Source of
of the interdependencies between Sustained Competitive Advan-
the three concepts is very limited, tage? Academy of Management
disappointing. In ICMs, the inte- Review, 11, 656-665.
gration of people, in lato sensu, is a Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Ball, D.
fact; the meaning of ‘culture’ in the B. (2013). Organizational Culture
current ICMs includes people as an and Innovation: a Meta-analytic
indistinctive mass. It is necessary to Review. Journal of Product Ma-
go further. This structural postulate nager, 30(4), 763-781.
of culture as producer of socializa- Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E.
tion eludes the unknowing relevan- (1999). Diagnosing and Chaning
ce of the everyday interaction as a Organizational Culture: Based
source to build, day a day and from on the Competing Values Fra-
the bottom, the innovation culture. mework. Massachusetts: Addi-
This oversimplification of organiza- son-Wesley.

76
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., Degraff, View on a Decade of Paradigm

J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Creat- Wars. Academy of Management
ing Values Leadership. Creating Review, 21(3), 619-654.
Value in Organizations. Chelten- Denison, D. R., & Neale, W. (1994).
ham - Massachusetts: Edward Denison Organizational Culture
Elgar. Survey. Ann Arbor: Aviat:
Casey, C. (2002). Critical Analysis of Denison, D. R., & Neale, W. (2000).
Organizations: Theory, Practice, Denison Organizational Cultu-
Revitalization. Londres: SAGE. re Survey. Ann Arbor: Denison
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). Consulting:
L’Acteur et le Système. Les Con- Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R.,
traintes de l’Action Collective. Lane, N., & Lief, C. (2012). Lea-
Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ding Culture Change in Global
Daft, R. L. (2013). Organization Organizations. San Francisco:
Theory & Design. Mason: South- Joseey-Bass.
Western-Cengage Learning. Dorado, S. (2013). Small Groups as
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Context for institutional Entre-
Corporate Cultures, the Rites and preneurship: An Exploration of
Rituals of Corporate Life. Massa- the Emergence of Commercial
chusetts: Addison-Wesley. Microfinance in Bolivia. Orga-
Denison Consulting. (2006). De- nizational Studies, 34(4), 533-
nison Overview: Introduction 557.
to the Denison Model. Denison Efrat, K. (2014). The Direct and In-
Research Notes, 1(1), 1-4. Avai- direct Impact of Culture on In-
lable in http://www.harshman. novation. Technoinnovation, 34,
com/assets/files/Denison_Cultu- 12-20.
re_Survey_overview.pdf Feldman, S. P. (1988). How Orga-
Denison, D. (2001). Organisational nizational Culture Can Affect
Culture: Can it Be a Key Lever for Innovation. Organization Dyna-
Driving Organisational Change? mics, 16(4), 57-68.
In C. L., Cooper, S., Cartwright, Fine, G. A. (1979). Small Groups
& P. C., Earley, (Eds.), The In- and Culture Creation: the Idio-
ternational Handbook of Orga- culture of Little League Baseball
nizational Culture and Climate. Teams. American Sociological
New York: John Wiley & Sons. Review, 44(5), 733-745.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the Giddens, A. (2003). La Constitu-
Difference between Organiza- ción de la Sociedad: Bases para
tional Culture and Organizatio- la Teoría de la Estructuración.
nal Climate? A Native’s Point of Buenos Aires: Amorrurtu.

77
Giddens, A., & Sutton, Ph. W. (2015). Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Con-
Conceptos Esenciales de Socio- sequences: International Diffe-
logía. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. rences in Work-Related Values.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, Beverly Hills: SAGE.
K. (2000). Organizational Iden- Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and
tity, Image, and Adaptative Ines- Organisations: Software of the
tability. Academy Management Mind. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
Review, 25, 63-81. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Con-
Godin, B. (2015). Models of Inno- sequences: Comparing Values,
vation: Why models of Innova- Behaviors, Institutions and Or-
tion are models, or What Work ganizations Across Nations. Lon-
Being Done in Calling Them dres: SAGE.
Models? Social Studies of Scien- Hogan, S., & Coote, L. V. (2014).
ce, 45(4), 570-596. Organizational Culture, Innova-
Hamel, G. (2007). The Future of tion, and Performance: a test of
Management. Boston: Harvard Schein’s Model. Journal of Busi-
Business School Press. ness Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
Harrison, R. & Stokes, H. (1993). Iwai, K. (1984). Schumpeterian
Diagnosing Organizational Cul- Dynamics, an Evolutionary Mo-
ture: Trainer’s Manual. Amster- del of Innovation and Imitation.
dam: Pfeiffer & Co. Journal of Economic Behaviour
Harrison, R., & Stokes, H. (1992). and Organization, 5(2), 159-190.
Diagnosing Organizational Cul- Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformatio-
ture. Amsterdam: Pfeiffer & Co. nal Leadership, Organizational
Hartmann, A. (2006). The Role of Culture and Innovativeness in
Organizational Culture in Moti- Nonprofit Organizations. Non-
vating Innovative Behaviour in profit Management and Leader-
Construct Firms. Construct In- ship, 15(2), 153-168.
novations, 6, 159-172. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle,
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2009). R. (2011). Innovation, Organiza-
Of Bricks and Brands: from Cor- tional Learning, and Performan-
porate to Enterprise Branding. ce. Journal of Business Research,
Organizational Dynamics, 38(2), 64(4), 408-417.
117-130. Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1992).
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2009). Managing Strategic Change: Stra-
Of Bricks and Brands: from tegy, Culture and Action. Londres:
Corporate to Enterprise Bran- Elsevier.
ding. Organizational Dynamics, Kim, L. (1980). Organizational In-
38(2), 117-130. novation and Structure. Journal

78
of Business Research, 2(8), Mayntz, R. (1980). Sociología de la

225-245. Organización. Madrid: Alianza.
Kokina, I., & Ostrovska, I. (2013). McAuley, J., Duberley, J., &
The Analysis of Organizational Johnson, P. (2007). Organization
Culture with the Denison Model Theory. Challenges and Pers-
(the Case Study of Latvian Mu- pectives. Essex: Prentice Hall.
nicipality). European Scientific McCarthy, E. (2013). The Dyna-
Journal, 1, 362-368. mics of Culture, Innovation and
Ladner, S. (2014). Practical Ethno- Organisational Change: A Nano-
graphy. A Guide to Doing Ethno- psychology Future Perspective
graphy in the Private Sector. of Psycho-Social and Cultural
Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Underpinnings of Innovation
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & and Technology. AI & Society,
Hirsch, P. (2003). Social Move- 28, 471-482.
ment, Field Frames and Industry McCarthy, E. (2013). The Dyna-
Emergence: A Cultural-political mics of Culture, Innovation and
Organisational Change: A Nano-
Perspective on US Recycling. So-
psychology Future Perspective of
cio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104.
Psycho-Social and Cultural Under-
Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdra-
pinnings of Innovation and Tech-
vkovic, S., Xin Zhou, J., &
nology. AI & Society, 28, 471-482.
Westjohn, A. (2008). Breaking
Michela, J. L., & Burke, W. W.
through the Cultural Clutter. A (2000). Organizational Culture
Comparative Assessment of Mul- and Climate in Transformation
tiple Cultural and Institutional for Quality and Innovation. In
Frameworks. International Mar- Ashkanasy, C.N.M., C.P.P., Wil-
keting Review, 25(2), 183-201. derom, & M. Peterson, (Eds.)
Manetje, O., & Martins, N. (2009). (2000). Handbook of Organisa-
The Relationship between Orga- tional Culture and Climate (pp.
nisational Culture and Organi- 225-244). California: SAGE.
sational Commitment. Southern Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and Or-
African Business Review, 13(1), ganization Theory. Annals of
87-111. the American of Political and
Martins, E., & Terblanche, F. Social Science, 619(1), 15-40.
(2003). Building Organizational Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996).
Culture that Stimulates Creati- National Culture and New Pro-
vity and Innovation. European duct Development: an Integrative
Journal of Innovation Manage- Review. Journal of Marketing,
ment, 6, 64-74. 60(1), 155-165.

79
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., & Calderón- 3M, Google y Costco. Daena:

Hernández, G. (2015). Constru- International Journal of Good
yendo una Cultura de Innovación. Conscience, 8(3), 72-91.
Una Propuesta de Transforma- Ouchi, W. (1979). A Conceptual
ción Cultural. Estudios Gerencia- Framework for the Design of
les, 31, 223-236. Organizational Control Mecha-
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jimé- nisms. Management Science,
nez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). 25(9), 833-848.
Innovation or Imitation? The Role Ouchi, W. (1982). Theory Z: How
of Organizational Culture. Mana- American Business Can Meet
gement Decision, 49(1), 55-72. the Japanese Challenge. Mas-
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez- sachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. Ouchi, W., & Jaeger, A. M (1978).
(2012). ¿Es la Cultura Orga- Type Z Organization: Stability
nizativa un Determinante de in the midst of Mobility. Aca-
la Innovación de la Empresa? demy of Management Review,
Cuadernos de Economía y Di- April, 305-314.
rección de Empresas, 15, 63-72. Peters, T. H., & Waterman, R. J.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, (1982). In Search of Excellence.
N. (2000). SECI, BA and Leader- Nueva York: Harper & Row.
ship: a Unified Model of Dyna- Porter, M. E. (1996). What is Stra-
mic Knowledge Creation. Long tegy? Harvard Business Review,
Range Planning, 33, 5-34. 74(6), 61-78.
O’Reilly, C. A.; Chatman, J., & Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J.
Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People (1983). A Spatial Model of
and Organizational Culture: A Effectiveness Criteria: Towards
Profile Comparison Approach to a Competing Values Approach
Assessing Person-Organization to Organizational Analysis. Ma-
fit. Academy of Management nagement Science, 29, 363-377.
Journal. 34(3), 487-516. Rodriguez Garay, R. (2009). La
OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Gui- Cultura Organizacional. Un Po-
delines for Collecting and Inter- tencial Activo Estratégico desde
preting Innovation Data. Paris: la Perspectiva de la Administra-
OECD Publishing. ción. INVENIO, 12(22), 67-92.
Olivares Farías, R. (2013). La cul- Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the
tura Organizacional, un activo Fifth-Generation Innovation Pro-
clave para la supervivencia de la cess. International Marketing
empresa: los casos de CEMEX, Review, 11(7), 7-31.

80
Ryan, J. C., & Tipu, S. A. A. (2013). novation: A Practical Guide to

Leadership Effects on Innovation Leading Organizational Chan-
Propensity: A Two Factors range ge and Renewal. Boston: Har-
Leadership Model. Journal of vard Business Review.
Business Research, 66(10), 2116- Van der Kooy, B. J. G. (1988). Inno-
2129. vation Defined An Analysis and
Sackmann, S. (2011). Culture and a Proposal. Report of the Eind-
Performance. In N. Ashkanasy, hoven University of Technology.
C., Wilderom, & M. Peterson, EUT/DBK/33: Endhoven.
(eds.) (2011). The Handbook of Van Maanen, J. (1979). The Face of
Organizational Culture and Cli- Fiction in Organizational Ethno-
mate. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. graphy. Administrative Science
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organiza- Quarterly, 24, 43-101.
tional Culture and Leadership. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Organizations. California: SAGE.
Schwartz. H. (1992). Universals in Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organiza-
the Content and Structure of Va- tional Diagnosis: Six Places to
lues: Theoretical Advances and Look for Trouble with or without
Empirical Test in 20 Countries. a Theory. Group & Organization
San Diego: Academic Press. Studies, 1(4), 430-447.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory Yang, Y. C., & Hsu, J. M. (2010). Or-
of Cultural Values and Some ganizational Process Alignment,
Implications for Work. Applied Culture and Innovation. African
Psychology, 48(1), 23-48. Journal of Business Manage-
Sharifirad, S. S., & Ataei, V. (2012). ment, 4(11), 223-240.
Organizational Culture and In- Zahra, S. A, & Covin, J. G. (1994).
novation Culture: Exploring the The Financial Implications of
Relationship between Constructs. Fit between Competitive Stra-
Leadership and Organization De- tegy and Innovation Types and
velopment Journal, 3(5), 494-517. Sources. The Journal of High
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. Technology Management Re-
A. (1997). Winning Through In- search, 5(2), 183-211.

81

Innovation Cultural Models: Review and Proposal For Next Steps

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation Cultural Models: Review and Proposal For Next Steps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation Cultural Models: Review

and Proposal for Next Steps

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

INTRODUCTION ground, as simple resource or fa-

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

organization from another, carry implementation of a new or signi-

Finally, the concept of ‘innova- Despite the semantical difficulties,

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

influence innovation (Michela, and ral elements that must be included

The late-seventies marks a cultural 1. METHOD

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

innovation culture (Lego, Whirl- Hofstede crystallized his experien-

Figure 1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model

Risk tolerant Uncertainty avoidance Risk intolerant

Collectivistic Individualism Individualistic

Collaboration & Power &

Normative repression Restraint vs indulgence Free satisfaction

Source: Hofstede, (online).

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

According to Geert Hofstede ( on- short-term cultures, on the other

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

the Chinese, Anglo-American and 2008). Among them, Hofstede has

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

Figure 2. Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Culture Model

Source: Schein (2004).

2. Values: a value is confirmed for granted, as DNA. In Argyris’

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

in particular, on manager’s leader- research on organizational culture

Figure 3. Cameron & Quinn’s Competing Values Model

Flexibility & Discretion

Internal focus & External focus &

Incremental Fast change

Source: Cameron, Quinn, Degraff & Thakor (2006).

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

The CVM is composed by cultural b. Clan: emphasis on flexibility,

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

i. Strategic direction: strate- d. Involvement (IV): sense of

Figure 4. Denison Organizational Culture Survey

INVOLVEMENT Capability Core CONSISTENCY

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

DOCS consists in four big traits, of organizational cultures, which

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

agents and organization –glo- at the same time, as Manetje and

Figure 5. Harrison & Stokes Model

High ROLE ACHIEVEMENT Low

Source: Manetje & Martins (2009).

Figure 6. Deal & Kennedy Model

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

Six elements are identified on the 2. Though-Guy Macho Culture:

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

2.7. Hatch & Schultz and dynamic balance between, on

Figure 7. Organizational Identity Dynamics Model

Culture We Identify Us Image

Source: Hatch & Schultz (2009).

In-and-out, answer-and-listen are The authors defines two extreme

Universidad & Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 20(34): 53-82, enero-junio 2018

2.8. Others ICMs vation can be infinite, as it is at the

Table 1. Others ICMs

Weisbord, 1976 Six-Box Model

Ouchi and Jaeger, 1978; Ouchi, 1979 Organizational Control Model

O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell, 1991 Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)