Propuesta de mejora

2.5.1.1 Definitional and conceptual issues

The theme of strategic and organisational alignment can be found in the human resource, organisational and management literature and research (Baumgartner, 2009; Kathuria, Joshi & Porth, 2007; Lewis, 2002; Ng & Ng, 2014; Ogbonna &

Harris, 2000; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003; Pasternack, Williams, &

Anderson, 2001; Tuan, 2010; Weeks, 2010; Yukl, 2010). This means exploring

and drawing dyadic and triadic relations between leadership, culture, and performance as operationalised and measurable variables. For example, one finds the dyadic relations between (1) leadership and culture; (2) culture and performance; and (3) and leadership and performance. The empirical research attempts to quantify the relationship of the two variables or the impact of the one variable on the other. A case in point is the exploration of the magnitude of the relationship between types of leadership behaviour, such as transformational leadership and organisational performance.

However, there are continuing debates and contestations on how one defines and delimits leadership, culture and performance (Burnes, 2004; Erez & Gati, 2004;

Ng et al, 2014; Sun, 2008; Weeks, 2010; Yukl, 2010). As noted in the previous section, there are contestations on defining, centreing and locating leadership.

This stems from differences in disciplinary lenses, levels of analysis, and methodological and philosophical orientations (epistemological and ontological assumptions). The literature and research on culture is similar to the leadership literature and research in that there are “different disciplines” (Ng et al, 2014) that lead to “differen[ces in the] focus”, levels of analysis, and manner of conceptualising culture (Burnes, 2004; Erez et al, 2004; Fletcher & Jones, 1992;

Lewis, 2002; Smircich, 1983; Sun; 2008; Tuan, 2010; Weeks, 2010). An example of this difference in focus is the conceptualisation of culture as “cultural artefacts”

(Smircish, 1983, p353) or as “generative processes that yield and shape meanings and that are fundamental to the very existence of the organisation” (ibid).

Another example of the difference in focus is the question of whether the formal or informal culture is within the theoretical and empirical ‘spotlight’ (Flamholtz &

Randle, 2012; Lewis, 2002; Weberg, 2012; Wetzel & Renterghem, 2015). One finds a similar difference in focus within the leadership literature and research, that is, the question whether the formal or informal leadership is within the

‘spotlight’ (Yukl, 2010). These leads to a further question on whether one differentiates the espoused and enacted leadership and culture (Howell, Brown, &

Cooper, 2012).

The theoretical perspectives on culture appear to have implications for understanding leadership within organisations. There are three different perspectives on culture within the organisational and management literature (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Ng et al, 2014). The integration perspective posits a singular, unique organisational culture; that is, a “unitarist [sic]” (Lewis, 2002, p282) and “homogenous” (Fletcher et al, 1992, p31) culture that is shared and common among the members of an organisation. It serves as the “glue”

(Meyerson et al, 1987, p624) of the organisation. The differentiation perspective, in contrast, sees organisational culture as the “sum of a number of “sub-organisational cultures”” (Ng et al, 2014, p21). Thus, there is no singular homogenous culture but rather the simultaneous presence of diversity and differences. However, one can differentiate “dominant” (Meyerson et al, 1987, p630) cultures from the other “subcultures” (ibid) and “counter-cultures” (ibid).

The fragmentation perspective questions whether one can infer from organisational phenomena or behaviour that there is a defined or describable culture. This perspective highlights “ambiguity” (p637) and “paradoxes” (ibid) within an organisation. This means that “[c]onsensus, dissensus [sic], and confusion coexist, making it difficult to draw cultural and subcultural [and even organisational] boundaries” (ibid).

As with leadership and culture, there are continuing debates on how one defines and delimits performance, including the level of analysis (Baumgartner, 2009;

Kathuria et al, 2007; Tuan, 2010; Yukl, 2010). One of the criticisms emerging is the narrow focus on organisational efficiency or revenue in the literature and research. Here, one can cite the emerging approach of integrative reporting, which requires organisations to report on their different forms of “capital” (International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), 2013, p11). This means reporting not just on financial capital but also human capital, social capital and intellectual capital (Becker, Huselid, Pickus & Spratt, 1997). Thus, the integrative reporting includes the tangible/visible and intangible/invisible dimensions of organisations.

2.5.1.2 Conceptualising alignment

Pasternack, Williams and Anderson (2001) argue that alignment can be both positive and negative, where it can help sustain the focus of an organisation as a whole and also keep the organisation anchored and render it more bureaucratic.

Alignment is value-neutral. Pasternack et al (2001) suggest that there does not necessarily need to be a trade-off between “alignment” (p68) and “adaptability”

(ibid). This means, for example, holding both the integration and differentiation perspectives of culture. They argue that leadership can be both systemic and structured as well as plural, distributed and “decentralized” (p70) within the organisation.

One finds a similar line of reasoning on organisational structure, form and strategic positioning. For example, O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) in their review of the evolving concept of “organisational ambidexterity” (p324) argue that the debate on structure and “structural alignments” (p325) is not necessarily a “trade-off between efficiency and flexibility” (ibid). That is, the trade-“trade-off between

“efficiency, control, certainty, and variance reduction” and “search, discovery, autonomy, and innovation” (ibid). It means there is a dynamic of centralisation and decentralisation of the organisational structure. For O’Reilly et al, organisational ambidexterity means that one can hold both ‘exploitation’ and

‘exploration’ positions; that is, “exploit[ing] existing assets and capabilities” and

“exploration to avoid being rendered irrelevant by changes in markets and technologies”. They argue that leadership can serve as the means and medium of resolving these two positions, the tensions entailed and the dynamics of centralisation and decentralisation.

Within the human resource literature, one notes the similar challenges of, and aspirations for, fit, alignment, coherence and integration of the human resource function: “an internally coherent, externally [organisationally] aligned, and effectively implemented HRM system” (Becker et al, 1997, p39). That is, identifying the human resource systems or “HR bundles” (Choi, 2014, p371) that fit the organisation and its strategy or provide the organisation with an inimitable

competitive advantage (Becker & Huselid, 1998, 2006; Becker, Huselid, Pickus,

& Spratt, 1997; Butler, Felstead, & Ashton, 2004; Garavan, Watson, Carbery &

O’Brien, 2015; Godard & Delaney, 2000; Huselid & Becker, 2011; Wall &

Wood, 2005). It opens up the question of whether alignment means a “tight fit”

(Dany et al, 2008, p2096) between HR and business.

One can conceptually differentiate fit in the following ways: as an internal fit (complementarities or synergies of HRM practices); organisational fit (complementarities between the HRM system and other systems in the firm);

strategic fit (the fit between the HR strategy and business strategy); and environmental fit (the fit between the HRM practices and strategy and the broader environment) (Becker & Gerhardt, 1996; Becker & Huselid, 1998; Guest, 1997, 2002; Wood, 1999).