The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
Diversity Management:
An Organisational Culture Audit
To Determine Individual Differences
Prof Ophillia Ledimo, University of South Africa, South Africa
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to conduct an organisational culture audit to determine individual
differences of employees within the South African army. A quantitative study was conducted with a
random sample size n=238. The participants completed the biographical questionnaire and the
Organisational Culture Inventory (OCI) which was used to measure organisational culture.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to identify the existing culture type in this
organisation and the statistically significant individual differences of the employees regarding
their perception of the organisational culture. The findings of this study are valuable for
organisational development practitioners and managers who are responsible to manage diversity
in their organisation because it enables organisations to understand the culture of their diverse
workforce and to propose relevant measures for improving employee performance using
individual differences. These findings also provide opportunity for future research. This study also
adds knowledge regarding organisational culture diagnosis and the nature of individual
differences, especially within the South African work context.
Keywords: Organisational Culture; Diversity; Individual Differences; Demographic
INTRODUCTION
A
diverse workforce is a reflection of a changing world and marketplace (Mazur, 2010). Thus,
managing diversity is an important aspect of leadership in today’s multi-cultural work context.
Organisations are becoming diverse because of the increasing globalization that requires more
interaction among people from diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds than ever before (Wrech, 2005; Mazur,
2010; Werner, 2007). Thomas (1996) also highlighted that diversity in organisations has for too long been
associated with multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial aspects of the workforce. An increasing number of
organisations are attempting to enhance inclusiveness of under represented individuals through proactive efforts to
manage their diversity (Gilbert, Stead and Ivancevich, 1999).
Preissing and Loennies (2011) indicate that the culture of an organisation tends to view the individual
employee as an important component as there is a dynamic and reciprocity of its development within and outside the
organisational context and the development of an organisational culture. Studies conducted on organisational culture
found that culture is important in understanding employee behaviour and performance (Brown, 1998; Robbins,
1996; Werner, 2007). Hence organisations that are faced with the challenge of managing a diverse workforce would
need to assess their organisational culture in order to develop knowledge of the existing organisational culture
differences among their employees. Failure to manage diversity in the organisation might become an obstacle for
achieving organisational goals. Managing and valuing diversity is a key component of effective people management,
which can improve the productivity of the organisation (Gilbert et al, 1999; Mazur, 2010). As a result maximizing
and capitalizing on workplace diversity has become an important issue for management today.
In the search to find strategies to manage a diverse workforce in organisations, it would be beneficial to
gain insight into the relationship between individual differences and organisational culture; with a specific focus on
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1747
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
how race, job levels and age groups differ. Therefore, the current research study examined how individual
differences influence employees’ perceptions of their organisational culture.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following literature reviews described the variables individual difference, organisational culture and the
theoretical relationship between these variables.
Individual Differences
Individuals differ from each other in some way or the other; hence such a similarity or difference between
persons reveals individual differences. This suggests that a group of employees is diverse if it is composed of
individuals who differ on a characteristic on which they base their own social identity (Robbins, 2005; Werner,
2007; O’Reilly, Williams and Barsade, 1998). Hence diversity is described as any mixture of items characterised by
differences and similarities (Thomas 1996). Individual differences refer to the extent and kind of variations or
similarities among people on some aspects such as demographic factors. They are essential in understanding
employees within an organisation. Studies have been conducted to indicate the role of individual differences such as
gender, age and race group in relation to organisational variables; namely, culture, commitment, retention, career
development, work engagement, job satisfaction, performance and job embeddedness (Manetje and Martins 2009;
Tanova and Holtom, 2008; Lumley, 2009; Martin and Roodt, 2008; Muteswa and Ortlepp, 2011). These studies
reported that there are statistically significant individual differences based on the variables gender, age and race
group.
There are primary and secondary dimensions of individual differences. According to Mazur (2010) the
primary dimensions of individual differences that exert primary influences on employees’ identities, are gender,
ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, age and mental or physical abilities and characteristics. These primary dimensions
shape employees’ basic self-image as well as their fundamental world views (Thomas, 1996; Wrech, 2005; Mazur,
2010). The secondary dimensions of individual differences are less visible; they exert a more variable influence on
personal identity and add a more subtle richness to the primary dimensions of diversity (Wee, Jonason and Li, 2014;
Mazur, 2010). These dimensions include; namely, educational background, geographic location, religion, first
language, family status, work style, work experience, military experience, organisational role and level, income and
communication style. The primary and secondary dimensions of individual differences occur due to interaction of
genetic and environmental factors. This implies that employees have inherited certain characteristics through genetic
codes, such as race. Both the primary and secondary dimensions may intertwine to produce unique syntheses of
human profiles, made up of both differences and similarities (Mazur, 2010). Hence it is important to identify and
understand this uniqueness in individuals because they are important for diversity management. According to Wrech
(2005) diversity management stresses the necessity of recognizing individual and cultural differences between
groups of employees, and making practical allowances for such differences in organisational policies.
Organisations need diversity to become more creative and open to change (Martin and Roodt, 2008; Mazur,
2010). Encouraging a diverse workplace where individual differences are valued enables employees to work to their
full potential in a more creative and productive work environment (DeNisi and Griffin, 2008; Wrech, 2005). This is
seen as an inclusive approach of diversity management; the one which therefore encompasses the interests of all
employees in the organisation. Mazur (2010) indicated that organisations need to focus on diversity and look for
ways to become totally inclusive organisations because diversity has the potential of yielding greater productivity
and competitive advantages. Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) argued that diversity management leads to an increased
understanding of diverse customers, increased creativity and commitment to the organisation, and better retention
and attendance. According to Mazur (2010) respecting individual differences will benefit the organisation by
creating a competitive edge and increasing work productivity.
Organisational Culture
The concept organisational culture has various definitions, predominantly in the context of psychology and
management theory (Struwig and Smith, 2002; Robbins, 2005; Hampden-Turner, 1990). Bagraim (2001) states that
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1748
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
there is no single universally accepted definition of the term organisational culture, hence there is a variety of
definitions. A basic definition of organisational culture is necessary to provide a point of departure in the quest for
an understanding of the phenomenon. Martins and Martins (2003) define organisational culture as a system of
shared meaning held by members, distinguishing the organisation from other organisations. This implies that culture
is an integrated pattern of human bevahoir which is unique to a particular organisation.
Organisational culture also refers to a pattern of basic assumptions invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration 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 (Schein, 1985; Hofstede, 1991; Harris and Ogbonna, 1998; Manetje and Martins,
2009). Culture includes distinctive norms, beliefs, principles and ways of behaving that are combined to give each
organisation its distinct character (Arnold, 2005; Johnson, 1990; Cummings and Worley, 2005). This suggests that
organisational culture distinguishes one organisation from another organisation; it is therefore to an organisation
what personality is to an individual.
The literature is abundant regarding the types and dimensions of organisational culture. Deal and Kennedy
(1982) identified four generic types of cultures to describe organisational culture; namely, the tough-guy/macho
culture, the work-hard/play-hard culture, the bet-your company culture and the process culture. Handy (1985)
described organisational culture by using four types of classification; namely, power, role, task and person cultures.
Schein (1985) used three levels to explain organisational culture; namely, artefacts, values and basic underlying
assumptions. Scholtz (1987) identified five primary culture typologies; namely, stable, reactive, anticipating,
exploring and creative. Hampden-Turner (1990) used four types of culture to describe organisational culture;
namely, role, power, task and atomistic cultures.
Hofstede (1991) highlighted that cultures differ based on five
dimensions, namely power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity and
confusion dynamism. O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) presented seven primary characteristics to describe
organisational culture; namely, innovation and risk-taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people
orientation, team orientation aggressiveness and stability.
These various typologies of organisational culture indicate that culture is described and conceptualised
differently in the literature. According to Wee et al (2014) the types of organisational culture have a distinct system
of shared meaning; which is a common way of interpreting actions and events that does not always hold across
individuals and groups. Cooke and Lafferty (1998) also identified the following three types of culture that are
relevant for this study because the typologies have corresponding sets of behavioural norms. Firstly, constructive
culture dimension implies that employees are encouraged to interact with others and approach tasks in the manner
that will help them meet their higher-order satisfaction needs, and are characterised by achievements, selfactualising, humanistic-encouraging and affiliation. Secondly, passive/defensive culture dimension means that
employees believe they must interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security, and are
characterised by the approval, conventional, dependent and avoidance styles. Lastly, aggressive/defensive culture
indicates that employees are expected to approach tasks in forceful ways to protect their status and security, and are
characterised by the oppositional, power, competitive and perfectionist styles.
Organisational culture is important in organisations because it refers to created assumptions, which are
accepted as a way of doing things and are passed on to new members of an organisation. For new employees this
would mean adaptive behaviour within the organisation that leads to new belief systems. This new and adaptive
behaviour is instilled through organisational values and beliefs that are associated with rituals, myths and symbols to
reinforce the core assumptions of organisational culture (Hofstede, 1991; Martins and Martins, 2003). Brown (1998)
highlighted that culture as the pattern of beliefs, values and learned ways of coping with experience that have
developed during the course of an organisation’s history; it tends to be manifested in its material arrangements and
in the behaviours of its members. This suggests that organisational culture is articulated in the organisation, in order
to shape the way in which organisational members should behave. However, this pattern of values, norms, beliefs,
attitudes, principles and assumptions may be unwritten or non-verbalised behaviour that describe the way in which
things get done; to give the organisation its unique character (Williams and Barsade, 1998; Robbins, 2005; Brown,
1998; Arnold, 2005).
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1749
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
The benefits of culture in organisations are that it directs the organisation towards goal attainment,
organisational success, enhances organisational citizenship, loyalty, customer satisfaction, motivation and it
increases the consistency of employees’ behaviour (Martins and Von der Ohe, 2006; Martins and Martins, 2003;
Robbins, 2005; Struwig and Smith, 2002; Pressing and Loennies, 2011). Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matterson
(2005) argued that culture influences employees to be good citizens and cooperate in the organisation. Culture is
able to create a unifying force that increases organisational performance and it is able to positively affect employee
behaviour and the financial performance of the organisation (Davidson, 2003; Manetje and Martins, 2009;
Ivancevich et al, 2005; Werner, 2007; Mazur, 2010). Martins, Martins and Terblanche (2004) highlighted that
organisational culture complements rational managerial tools such as strategy, goals, tasks, technology,
organisational structure, information systems and performance appraisal; by playing an indirect role in influencing
employee behaviour. Some of the studies conducted in various South African organisations indicate that
organisational culture contributes towards employees` job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Sempane,
Rieger and Roodt, 2002; Manetje and Martins, 2009).
Theoretical Relationship Between Organisational Culture and Individual Differences
Organisations are consistently focussing on their systematic and planned commitment to recruit, retain,
reward, and promote a heterogeneous mix of employees (Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000; Cummings and Worley,
2005). According to Wee et al (2014) different interpretations of organisational culture become increasingly likely
as the work context becomes increasingly multi-cultural, more ethnically diverse workforces within organisations.
The different interpretations of culture by employees tend to lead to the development of dominant and sub-cultures
in the organisation. Hence individual differences are considered to be the source of sub-cultures. A sub-culture
emerges as a result of a subgroup’s collective functionality in a specific unit of the organisation (Robbins, 2005). It
occurs as a result of individual experiences concerning certain aspects in organisations. The sub-culture could be
efficient and appropriate if it is not contradicting the dominant or ideal organisational culture.
While large organisations have a dominant organisational culture, they are at risk of developing a number
of sub-cultures. Sub-cultures tend to develop in large organisation to reflect common problems, situations and
experiences faced by employees in the organisation (Martins and Von der Ohe, 2006). Organisations develop subcultures because of functional differences, gender, socio-economic and educational backgrounds (Deal and
Kennedy, 1982). Sub-cultures exist independently of organisational culture and a small group may have its own
distinct set of values, beliefs and attitudes (Lok and Crawford, 1999). Martins and Von der Ohe (2006) argued that
variables that play a role in the formation of sub-cultures are departmental groupings, race groups, geographical
distribution, occupational categories or the influence of a specific manager. This implies that individual differences
have an influence in the creation or development of sub-cultures within the organisation.
Military organisations are large in nature and they are at the risk of having sub-cultures. The challenge of
having sub-cultures in the organisation is due to the different effects a subculture have on individuals in the
organisation. Hence this study is motivated by the need to gain a better insight into the effects of demographic
factors or individual differences (race, age and job level) on the three dimensions of organisational culture; in order
to indicate to policymakers and managers where improvements can be made, and to helps them to develop strategies
and policies that could create an ideal organisational culture and to manage diversity. There is therefore a perceived
need to augment the South African literature base regarding individual differences, diversity management and
organisational culture in particular.
Based on the above motivation and the literature review, the main purpose of this study is to determine
individual differences that influence employees’ perceptions of their organisational culture in the South African
Army. The following hypothesis was formulated for this study.
Hypothesis: There are statistically significant individual differences regarding the participants’ perception of the
organisational culture.
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1750
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
Research Approach
A quantitative design was followed in this study in order to achieve the research objectives of the empirical
study (Kerlinger, 1986). Survey methodology was used to collect primary data from a random sample of
participants.
Participants and Sampling Strategy
The total population of the study comprised of 4 350 employees of the military organisation. Simple
random sampling technique was used to ensure that all employees within the department had an equal chance to be
included in the sample (Keller and Warrack, 2000). The 238 participants of this study who are employed at
managerial and staff level, were randomly selected by means of a computerised program. They were from various
divisions and directorates within the army. All participants received the questionnaire with a covering letter from the
researchers which introduced the study and explained its purpose. It also included instructions for completing and
returning the questionnaire upon completion, the method for participant’s selection, anonymity and confidential
nature of the research process.
Measuring Instruments
Section A of the questionnaire comprised of the biographical questionnaire which measured individual
differences as the independent variables; namely, age, gender, highest qualification, years of service, job level and
race groups. The majority of the participants who completed the questionnaires were aged 35 above (58%) and the
sample was predominantly represented by males (61.1%) rather than females. In terms of race, Africans (65.9%)
were the majority. The different race groups included Asian (7%), coloureds (9.7%) and whites (22.7%)
participants. Most of the participants had Grade 12 (60.5%) as the highest qualification and had been with the
organisation for more than 10 years (65.50%). In terms of job levels, most participants were at the operational staff
level (69%) while the participants that were employed at the managerial level were less (31%).
Sections B included the Organisational Culture Inventory (OCI) which was used to measure the dependent
variable organisational culture (Cooke and Szumal, 1993). The OCI was designed by Cooke and Lafferty (1987)
with the aim of measuring behavioural norms within an organisational setting. Cooke and Szumal (2000) stated that
since its introduction, the OCI has been used by thousands of organisations and completed by over 2 million
respondents throughout the world. The behavioural norms are grouped into three types or dimensions of
organisational culture; namely, constructive, passive/defensive and aggressive/defensive dimensions (Cooke and
Szumal, 1993). Xenikou and Furnham (1996) reported that the reliability for the organisational culture dimensions
ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Hence the psychometric property of the OCI was considered sufficient for this study.
FINDINGS
The following discussion of the results of this study focusses on the descriptive statistics, reliability and the
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of the Organisational Culture Inventory
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used in this study to determine the reliability of the measuring
instrument, namely the OCI. Terre Blanche and Durrheim (1999) state that a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient that
ranges from 0 means there is no internal consistency, while a score of 1 is the maximum internal consistency score.
This suggests that the higher the alpha coefficient, the more reliable the measuring instruments. A Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.75 is regarded as a desirable reliability coefficient (Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 1999). Table 1
presents the Cronbach’s alpha values, mean scores and the standard deviations of the OCI. The Cronbach’s alpha for
the OCI ranges from 0.867 to 0.964 for the three dimensions, which is regarded as desirable.
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1751
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and reliability of the Organisational Culture Inventory dimensions
OCI Dimensions
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
Mean
SD
Number of items
Constructive
0.964
114.38
25.77
32
Passive/Defensive
0.867
102.06
16.62
32
Aggressive/Defensive
0.873
98.29
18.47
32
n = 238; SD= Standard deviation
In terms of the mean and the standard deviations as the measures of internal consistency; table 1 indicates
that the constructive culture dimension has the highest mean (m = 114.38) with a standard deviation of 25.77. The
aggressive/defensive culture dimension has the lowest mean of 98.29 with a standard deviation of 18.47. This result
implies that the employees perceive the constructive organisational culture as the most dominant culture in the
organisation; when compared with the aggressive/defensive and passive/defensive.
One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Organisational Culture Inventory and Individual Differences
The ANOVA was conducted for this empirical study to determine whether there are statistically significant
differences between the independent variable individual differences and the dependent variable organisational
culture. The following individual differences variables were used as the independent variables; namely, race, job
level and age.
OCI Dimensions
Constructive
Passive/Defensive
Aggressive/Defensive
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 2. ANOVA of Organisational Culture Inventory and Race
F
Between groups
2.840
Between groups
1.777
Between groups
1.851
Significance
0.039*
0.153
0.140
The results presented in table 2, indicates that the statistically significant difference was only found
between the variable race and the participants’ perception of the Constructive culture dimension (p < 0.05) as the
dominant organisational culture. However, there are no statistically significant difference between the independent
variable race and the organisational culture dimensions Passive/Defensive and Aggressive/Defensive.
OCI Dimensions
Constructive
Table 3. Mean scores for Organisational Culture Inventory and race groups
Race
Mean
Standard deviation
African
116.43
26.52
Asian
100.00
26.87
Coloured
121.16
19.60
White
105.66
22.81
Overall score
114.03
25.394
Standard error
2.432
19.000
4.498
3.328
1.857
In addition, the mean results in table 3 indicate that coloured employees in this organisation obtained a
significantly higher mean score for the Constructive culture dimension (m = 121.16) compared to the other race
groups; namely, African (m=116.43), whites (m= 105.66) and Asian (m = 100.00). Although all the race groups
rated the Constructive organisational culture dimension the highest, the coloured participants of this organisation
viewed the culture of the organisation as more Constructive to a larger extent than the other three races groups.
OCI Dimensions
Constructive
Passive/Defensive
Aggressive/Defensive
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 4. ANOVA of the Organisational Culture Inventory and Age
Groups
F
Between groups
3.712
Between groups
0.589
Between groups
2.139
Copyright by author(s); CC-BY
1752
Significance
0.006**
0.671
0.078
The Clute Institute
The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2015
Volume 31, Number 5
According to Table 4, the results report that statistically significant differences were found between the
variable age and the participants’ perception of the Constructive dimension (p < 0.01) as the dominant organisational
culture. Still, there are no statistically significant difference between the independent variable age and the
organisational culture dimensions Passive/Defensive and Aggressive/Defensive.
OCI Dimensions
Constructive
Table 5. Mean scores for Organisational Culture Inventory and age groups
Age group
Mean
Standard deviation
24 and younger
126.78
18.06
25–34
111.67
27.50
35–44
110.24
26.28
45–52
111.84
26.16
53 and older
102.67
19.87
Standard error
2.856
5.614
3.142
3.901
6.625
The results in table 5 illustrates that the participants younger than 24 years in age in this organisation
obtained a significantly higher mean score for the Constructive culture dimension (m = 126.78) compared to the
other age groups. The reported means score for the other age groups indicate the mean scores of 111.67 (25-34
years); 110.24 (35- 44 years); 111.84 (45-52 years) and 102.67 (53years and older). This implies that young
employees in this organisation perceive the Constructive organisational to be dominant when compare with older
employees.
OCI Dimensions
Constructive
Passive/Defensive
Aggressive/Defensive
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 6. ANOVA of the Organisational Culture Inventory and job level
F
Between groups
3.163
Between groups
6.016
Between groups
12.001
Significance
0.077
0.015*
0.001**
Table 6 indicates that statistically significant differences were found between the variable job level and the
participants’ perception of the Passive/Defensive (p
Purchase answer to see full
attachment