Evaluación alternativa

The relationship of organizational culture and identity to strategy is critical because of ever changing competitive challenges (A. D. Brown, 1998). Sports organizations face pressures to perform at a corporate level as well as on the playing field. A culture and identity that are strong and appropriate will ensure the organization is adaptable and responsiveness to change. However, little empirical analysis has been undertaken on the role of organizational culture and identity in sporting organizations and the way in which they influence on and off-field performances. Some valuable research has been conducted on sporting organizations in regulated environments but it focuses on economic structures rather than strategic planning (Dabscheck, 1975; , 1999; Quirk & Fort, 1992; R. Stewart, 1989a; , 1989b).

Organizations adopt new strategies to manage new challenges as they are presented. However, it is difficult to implement new strategies that require the staff to adopt different values, assumptions and/or ways of doing things, if they are too diverse from current strategies because the values and assumptions that they are being asked to change are the products of their past successes (Schein, 1992). Hence, organizational culture and identity are fundamental elements of implementing strategy because they will either assist or impede change. Hinings et al (1996) consider the role of culture in developing strategies within sporting organizations and their work explores the relationship between the organization’s culture and its values. They conclude that

58

culture and values underpin the organization’s structure and strategy. They also note that the strategies adopted will determine how an organization performs.

2.5.2.1. Strategy Development and Implementation

Strategy is developed through the organizational structure, processes and behaviours, appropriate for the environment, aimed at improved performance and success (Mintzberg, 1999; J. B. Quinn, 1999; Robbins & Barnwell, 1998). Smith and Stewart (1999) contend in their model for sport management that culture and strategy are two of the core elements of the process of managing sports organizations. Slack (1997) describes culture as a concept that is widely accepted in sports organizations because it makes sense of organizational realities that are difficult to define and critical to good management. Culture and identity can be used to create an appropriate organizational environment that attracts the right people, enabling them to operate effectively within the organization’s strategic framework and objectives.

The resultant environment from the strategy development and implementation process relies on the leaders of the organizations, in part, to establish the values and underlying assumptions for their organization through the social validation process. The social validation process provides the vision and perception of new, or particular strategies, and creates the right internal environment that enables them to be adopted (Collins & Porras, 1998; Schein, 1992). There is some debate as to whether a strategy is developed as a plan, a system of management, or a craft process (A. D. Brown, 1998; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1998). Whichever it is, organizational strategy, culture and identity share common elements. They all create a direction and consistent order in organizational life based upon members’ experiences. Brown (1998) argues that a strategy, which represents a cultural artefact of the organization, results from the long term plans that senior executives make that meet the challenges of the external environment to achieve organizational objectives. The distinction helps define their relationship to each other and how organizational culture and identity influence strategy development.

A strategy is developed when an organization identifies threats and opportunities to it within its environment and formulates a response to them based upon its strengths and weaknesses. Organizations then implement the strategy through a series of management processes. The influence of organizational culture and identity upon strategy

59

formulation and implementation is explained by Brown (1998) who puts forward the following propositions:

1. The culture and identity of an organization influences how the organization perceives its environment and the data it gained from it, such as any threats and opportunities as well as its own strengths and weaknesses;

2. The values and assumptions of the organizations act as filters, focussing attention in particular areas and away from others, thereby biasing what strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats upon which the organization focuses;

3. Organizations interpret, and use different methods of interpretation, information gained from its environment in a particular way that suits its own organizational culture and identity. Sporting organizations for example interpreted threats, causes and effects differently to a construction organization;

4. Once an organization interprets data from its environment, it decides how it should respond to that data. This involves moral and ethical issues and how an organization responded on such issues based on its values;

5. An organization’s response to certain situations is closely aligned with its past successes. The strategy adopted is a result of previous success from a similar strategy. Equally other strategies maybe ignored because they have failed in the past; and,

6. Subcultures influence the choice of strategy. Often organizations and their subcultures agree on a situation but the subcultures offer different means of resolving it. The different subcultures provide a microanalysis of the macro problem by seeing the problem according to their own organizational subculture. Other issues such as power and influence within the organization also have a role in how particular subcultures are regarded.

At the same time, the development and implementation of strategies determine ultimately how an organization performs since it is the strategy that determines how it responds to its environment. Such relationships have been revealed by many organizational theorists and strategists (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; G. Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Mintzberg, 1999; Mintzberg &

60

Quinn, 1998; Pfeffer, 1995; Porter, 1985; J. B. Quinn, 1999; Robbins, 2001; Robbins & Barnwell, 1998; Schein, 1992; A Smith & Stewart, 1999; M Weber, 1946; Weick, 1985).