Organizational Culture and Subcultures in the Spanish Nuclear Industry
Abstract
:Featured Application
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Organizational Culture
1.2. Organizational Subcultures
1.3. Subcultures and Safety
‘Is the existence of subcultures likely to be harmful? One viewpoint is that, unless the different subcultures all contain something that results in a common sense of purpose, different priorities and agendas can arise and this can create serious problems. The counterargument is that different subcultures give different perspectives, and this is advantageous.’
1.4. Organizational and Cultural Structure
1.5. Theoretical Foundation of Our Approach
‘Cultures are neither homogeneous not fully integrated. On the one hand, because disagreement and even conflict will always arise. On the other hand, because people within a culture adopt its core with mixed intensity.’
‘A subset of an organization’s members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group.’
- Describing the organizational culture of the Spanish nuclear industry.
- Identifying features of different subcultures within the Spanish nuclear industry. To do so, the influence of some demographic variables on organizational culture is analyzed. The following variables have been studied:
- Sector (working at nuclear power plants or at nuclear public companies);
- Location (working at the facility or at the headquarters);
- Contractual relationships (own staff or contractors);
- Organizational components identified by Mintzberg [45] (strategic apex, middle line, operating core, technostructure and support staff).
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Sample Characteristics
2.2. Measurement Instrument
- Constructive Culture: Workers are encouraged to cooperate, reaching high levels of motivation, satisfaction, teamwork and service quality.
- Passive/Defensive Culture: Organization members are expected to please individuals in positions of authority, and they wait for others to act first.
- Aggressive/Defensive Culture: Organization members are expected to oppose new ideas, to compete amongst them and to seem competent and independent.
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Reliabilities, Factorial Components and Global Descriptives of the OCI
3.2. Cultural Differences by Demographic Variables
3.2.1. Differences by Type of Organization
3.2.2. Differences by Work Location (Facility vs. Headquarters)
3.2.3. Differences by Contractual Relationship (Own Staff vs. Contractor)
3.2.4. Differences by Mintzberg’s Organizational Components
4. Discussion
4.1. Organizational Culture of the Spanish Nuclear Industry
4.2. Existence of Organizational Subcultures within the Spanish Nuclear Industry
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cooper, C.L.; Cartwright, S.; Earley, P.C.E. The International Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Malinowski, B. Una Teoría Científica de la Cultura; Grandes Pensadores; Sarpe: Barcelona, Spain, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Rocher, G. Introducción a la Sociología General; Herder: Barcelona, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Schein, E.H. La Cultura Empresarial y el Liderazgo; Editorial Plaza & Janes: Barcelona, Spain, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Spencer-Oatey, H. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures; Open linguistics series; Continuum: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bang, H. Organisasjonskultur (3.utgave) [Organizational Culture]; Tano AS: Oslo, Norway, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Deal, T.E.; Kennedy, A.A. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life; Addison-Wesley Pub. Co: Boston, MA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, J. Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, M.D. Towards a model of safety culture. Saf. Sci. 2000, 36, 111–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G.J. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival; Successful strategist series; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Balthazard, P.A.; Cooke, R.A.; Potter, R.E. Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 709–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schein, E.H. Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning. Sloan Manage. Rev. 1996, 38, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
- Shortell, S.M.; Jones, R.H.; Rademaker, A.W.; Gillies, R.R.; Dranove, D.S.; Hughes, E.F.X.; Budetti, P.P.; Reynolds, K.S.E.; Huang, C.-F. Assessing the Impact of Total Quality Management and Organizational Culture on Multiple Outcomes of Care for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Patients. Med. Care 2000, 38, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eisenberg, E.; Riley, P. Organizational Culture. In The New Handbook of Organizational Communication; Fredric M. Jablin, L.L.P., Ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 291–322. [Google Scholar]
- Niemietz, H.; Kinderen, S.; Constantinidis, C. Understanding the role of subcultures in the enterprise architecture process. In Proceedings of the ECIS 2013—Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 5–8 June 2013; p. 2013. [Google Scholar]
- International Atomic Energy Agency. Safety Culture, Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-4; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Human and Organizational Factors in Nuclear Safety in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2014.
- Antonsen, S. Safety culture and the issue of power. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariscal, M.A.; Herrero, S.G.; Toca Otero, A. Assessing safety culture in the Spanish nuclear industry through the use of working groups. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1237–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership; The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Trice, H.M.; Beyer, J.M. The Cultures of Work Organizations; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Reason, J. Achieving a safe culture: Theory and practice. Work Stress 1998, 12, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martin, J. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives; Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Mearns, K.; Flin, R.; Gordon, R.; Fleming, M. Measuring safety climate on offshore installations. Work Stress 1998, 12, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumford, M.D.; Vessey, W.B.; Barrett, J.D. Commentary: Measuring divergent thinking: Is there really one solution to the problem? Psychol. Aesthetics, Creat. Arts 2008, 2, 86–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jermier, J.M.; Slocum, J.W.; Fry, L.W.; Gaines, J. Organizational Subcultures in a Soft Bureaucracy: Resistance Behind the Myth and Facade of an Official Culture. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 170–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, R.D. Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Helmreich, R.L.; Merritt, A.C. Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine: National, Organizational and Professional Influences; Routledge Revivals; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, M. Organizational Culture and Identity: Unity and Division at Work; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Rollenhagen, C.; Westerlund, J.; Näswall, K. Professional subcultures in nuclear power plants. Saf. Sci. 2013, 59, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, S.D.; Koh, H.C.; Killough, L.N. Organizational and Occupational Culture and the Perception of Managerial Accounting Terms: An Exploratory Study Using Perceptual Mapping Techniques. Contemp. Manag. Res. 2009, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koene, B.; Boone, C.; Soeters, J. Organizational factors influencing homogeneity and heterogeneity of organizational cultures. In Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions; Sackman, S., Ed.; Sage Publications series; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 273–293. [Google Scholar]
- Black, R.J. Organisational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success; Universal Publishers: Irvine, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Copuš, L.; Šajgalíková, H.; Wojčák, E. Organizational Culture and its Motivational Potential in Manufacturing Industry: Subculture Perspective. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 32, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallidou, A.A.; Cummings, G.G.; Estabrooks, C.A.; Giovannetti, P.B. Nurse specialty subcultures and patient outcomes in acute care hospitals: A multiple-group structural equation modeling. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2011, 48, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, R.A. Organizations as Multiple Cultures: A Rules Theory Analysis. Hum. Relations 1988, 41, 139–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Jung, W. Comparing cultural profiles of MCR operators with those of non-MCR operators working in domestic Nuclear Power Plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 133, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations: Guidance for Use in the Enhancement of Safety Culture, IAEA-TECDOC-1329; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2002.
- Turner, B.A. Man-made Disasters; Wykeham Science Series; Wykeham Publications: London, UK, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, B.A.; Pidgeon, N.F. Man-made Disasters, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Boisnier, A.; Chatman, J. The Role of Subcultures in Agile Organizations; Division of Research, Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Wahlström, B. Finnish and Swedish practices in nuclear safety. Nucl. Saf. a Hum. Factors Perspect. 1999, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Lofquist, E.A.; Dyson, P.K.; Trønnes, S.N. Mind the gap: A qualitative approach to assessing why different sub-cultures within high-risk industries interpret safety rule gaps in different ways. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintzberg, H. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Mintzberg, H. Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Haber, S.B.; O’Brien, J.N.; Ryan, T.G. Model development for the determination of the influence of management on plant risk. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, Monterey, CA, USA, 5 June 1988; IEEE: Monterey, CA, USA, 1988; pp. 349–352. [Google Scholar]
- Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research; Theory of Management Policy Series; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Guldenmund, F.W. Understanding Safety Culture Through Models and Metaphors. In Safety Cultures, Safety Models; Gilbert, C., Journé, B., Laroche, H., Bieder, C., Gilbert, C., Journé, B., Laroche, H., Bieder, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 21–34. [Google Scholar]
- Van Maanen, J.; Barley, S. Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In Organizational Culture; Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C., Martin, J., Eds.; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1985; pp. 31–53. [Google Scholar]
- Haber, S.B.; Shurberg, D.A.; Barriere, M.T.; Hall, R.E. The Nuclear Organization and Management Analysis Concept methodology: Four years later. In Proceedings of the Conference Record for 1992 5th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, HFPP, Monterey, CA, USA, 7–11 June 1992; 1992; pp. 389–393. [Google Scholar]
- Cooke, R.A.; Lafferty, J.C. Organizational Culture Inventory; Human Synergistics: Plymouth, MO, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, T.; Mannion, R.; Davies, H.; Marshall, M. The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Serv. Res. 2003, 38, 923–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, R.A.; Szumal, J.L. Measuring Normative Beliefs and Shared Behavioral Expectations in Organizations: The Reliability and Validity of the Organizational Culture Inventory. Psychol. Rep. 1993, 72, 1299–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seago, J.A. Registered nurses, unlicensed assistive personnel, and organizational culture in hospitals. J. Nurs. Adm. 2000, 30, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xenikou, A.; Furnham, A. A Correlational and Factor Analytic Study of Four Questionnaire Measures of Organizational Culture. Hum. Relations 1996, 49, 349–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellot, J. Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture. Nurs. Forum 2011, 46, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cooke, R.A. OCI: Organizational Culture Inventory: Leader’s Guide; Human Synergistics: Plymouth, MO, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Szumal, J.L. Organizational Culture Inventory: Interpretation and Development Guide; Human Synergistics: Plymouth, MO, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; Version 22.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill series in psychology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C. An Approach for Confirmatory Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling of Organizational Properties. Manage. Sci. 1987, 33, 525–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Cooke, R.A.; Rousseau, D.M. Behavioral Norms and Expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Gr. Organ. Manag. 1988, 13, 245–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shurberg, D.A.; Haber, S.B. An Organizational Survey of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; Brookhaven National Laboratory: Upton, NY, USA, 1992.
- Silla, I.; Navajas, J.; Koves, G.K. Organizational culture and a safety-conscious work environment: The mediating role of employee communication satisfaction. J. Safety Res. 2017, 61, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D. Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple methods. In Organizational Climate and Culture; Schneider, S., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 153–192. [Google Scholar]
- Weidner, C.K. Trust and Distrust at Work: Normative and Dyad-exchange Influences on Individual and Subunit Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Cooke, R.A.; Szumal, J.L. Using the organizational culture inventory to understand operating cultures of organizations. Handb. Organ. Cult. Clim. 2000, 54, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Herrero, S.; Mariscal, M.A.; Gutiérrez, J.M.; Toca-Otero, A. Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant. Saf. Sci. 2013, 53, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Germán, S.; Navajas, J.; Silla, I. Safety challenges in Spain’s nuclear industry according to sector experts. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2016, 90, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arias, J.P.; Bronfman, N.C.; Cisternas, P.C.; Repetto, P.B. Hazard proximity and risk perception of tsunamis in coastal cities: Are people able to identify their risk? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Variable | Sample N (%) | Total N (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Organization | Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) 1 | 292 (5.01%) | 4618 (79.28%) |
Nuclear Power Plant 2 | 533 (9.15%) | ||
Nuclear Power Plant 3 | 1975 (33.91%) | ||
Nuclear Power Plant 4 | 1818 (31.21%) | ||
Nuclear Public (NPC) Company 1 | 444 (7.62%) | 1207 (20.72%) | |
Nuclear Public Company 2 | 437 (7.50%) | ||
Nuclear Public Company 3 | 326 (5.60%) | ||
Total Sample | 5825 (100%) | ||
Location | Facility | 4530 (84.53%) | 5359 (100%) |
Headquarters | 829 (15.47%) | ||
Contract | Own Staff | 3031 (55.86%) | 5426 (100%) |
Contractors | 2395 (44.14%) | ||
Mintzberg (NPP1) | Strategic Apex | 23 (3.54%) | 650 (100%) |
Middle Line | 66(10.15%) | ||
Operating Core | 219 (33.69%) | ||
Technostructure | 126 (19.38%) | ||
Support Staff | 216 (33.23%) |
Constructive Norms [Cultural Styles Promoting Satisfaction Behaviors] |
Achievement: An Achievement culture characterizes organizations that do things well and value members who set and accomplish their own goals. Members are expected to set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach these goals, and pursue them with enthusiasm. (Pursue a standard of excellence; Openly show enthusiasm) Self-Actualizing: A Self-Actualizing culture characterizes organizations that value creativity, quality over quantity, and both task accomplishment and individual growth. Members are encouraged to gain enjoyment from their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting activities. (Think in unique and independent ways; Do even simple tasks well) Humanistic/Encouraging: A Humanistic-Encouraging culture characterizes organizations that are managed in a participative and person-centered way. Members are expected to be supportive, constructive, and open to influence in their dealings with one another. (Help others to grow and develop; Take time with people) Affiliative: An Affiliative culture characterizes organizations that place a high priority on constructive interpersonal relationships. Members are expected to be friendly, open, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group. (Deal with others in a friendly, pleasant way; share feelings and thoughts) |
Passive/Defensive Norms [Cultural Styles Promoting People/Security Behaviors] |
Approval: An Approval culture describes organizations in which conflicts are avoided and interpersonal relationships are pleasant--at least superficially. Members feel that they should agree with, gain the approval of, and be liked by others. (“Go along” with others; Be liked by everyone) Conventional: A Conventional culture is descriptive of organizations that are conservative, traditional, and bureaucratically controlled. Members are expected to conform, follow the rules, and make a good impression. (Always follow policies and practices; Fit into the “mold”) Dependent: A Dependent culture is descriptive of organizations that are hierarchically controlled and do not empower their members. Centralized decision making in such organizations leads members to do only what they are told and to clear all decisions with superiors. (Please those in positions of authority; Do what is expected) Avoidance: An Avoidance culture characterizes organizations that fail to reward success but nevertheless punish mistakes. This negative reward system leads members to shift responsibilities to others and avoid any possibility of being blamed for a mistake. (Wait for others to act first; Take few chances) |
Aggressive/Defensive Norms [Cultural Styles Promoting Task/Security Behaviors] |
Oppositional: An Oppositional culture describes organizations in which confrontation and negativism are rewarded. Members gain status and influence by being critical and thus are reinforced to oppose the ideas of others. (Point out flaws; Be hard to impress) Power: A Power culture is descriptive of nonparticipative organizations structured on the basis of the authority inherent in members’ positions. Members believe they will be rewarded for taking charge, controlling subordinates and, at the same time, being responsive to the demands of superiors. (Build up one’s power base; Demand loyalty) Competitive: A Competitive culture is one in which winning is valued and members are rewarded for outperforming one another. Members operate in a “win-lose” framework and believe they must work against (rather than with) their peers to be noticed. (Turn the job into a contest; Never appear to lose) Perfectionistic: A Perfectionistic culture characterizes organizations in which perfectionism, persistence, and hard work are valued. Members feel they must avoid any mistakes, keep track of everything, and work long hours to attain narrowly defined objectives. (Do things perfectly; Keep on top of everything) |
Studied Variables | ||
---|---|---|
Definition | Variables | |
Sector | Type of nuclear sector organization | Nuclear Power Plants/Nuclear Public Companies (companies specializing in radwaste and dismantling processes, fuel manufacturing and nuclear component manufacturing) |
Location | Personal workplace. | Facility/Headquarters |
Contractual relationship | Contractual situation of workforce | Own personnel/Contractor |
Mintzberg Component | Organizational component in which personnel are integrated according to Mintzberg’s classification (1989) | Strategic Apex/Middle Line/Operating Core/Technostructure/Support Staff |
OCI Styles | Component | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constructive | Passive /Defensive | Aggressive /Defensive | Cronbach’s α | M | SD | N | |
Humanistic-Encouraging | 0.91 | −0.03 | −0.13 | 0.93 | 3.55 | 0.87 | 5782 |
Affiliative | 0.90 | 0.06 | −0.20 | 0.94 | 3.62 | 0.90 | 5790 |
Achievement | 0.87 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.76 | 3.37 | 0.63 | 5781 |
Self-Actualizing | 0.90 | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.83 | 3.35 | 0.72 | 5779 |
Approval | 0.07 | 0.61 | 0.42 | 0.76 | 2.82 | 0.63 | 5782 |
Conventional | −0.17 | 0.88 | 0.06 | 0.78 | 3.30 | 0.66 | 5779 |
Dependent | 0.05 | 0.85 | 0.14 | 0.64 | 3.26 | 0.56 | 5784 |
Avoidance | −0.53 | 0.29 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 2.30 | 0.75 | 5779 |
Oppositional | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.81 | 0.48 | 2.77 | 0.46 | 5781 |
Power | −0.21 | 0.40 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 2.62 | 0.65 | 5790 |
Competitive | −0.35 | 0.24 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 2.15 | 0.87 | 5782 |
Perfectionistic | 0.12 | 0.69 | 0.25 | 0.73 | 3.11 | 0.61 | 5790 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.89 | ||||
M * | 3.47 | 2.92 | 2.66 | ||||
SD | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.50 | ||||
N | 5794 | 5794 | 5794 |
Nuclear Industry | NPP | NPC | NPP/NPC | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OCI Styles | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ |
Humanistic-Encouraging | 3.55 | 0.87 | 3.65 | 0.85 | 3.16 | 0.86 | 0.57 |
Affiliative | 3.62 | 0.90 | 3.71 | 0.89 | 3.26 | 0.84 | 0.52 |
Achievement | 3.37 | 0.63 | 3.43 | 0.60 | 3.15 | 0.67 | 0.46 |
Self-Actualizing | 3.35 | 0.72 | 3.40 | 0.70 | 3.14 | 0.74 | 0.38 |
Approval | 2.82 | 0.63 | 2.80 | 0.65 | 2.91 | 0.57 | −0.18 |
Conventional | 3.30 | 0.66 | 3.27 | 0.67 | 3.41 | 0.62 | −0.22 |
Dependent | 3.26 | 0.56 | 3.24 | 0.56 | 3.35 | 0.53 | −0.19 |
Avoidance | 2.30 | 0.75 | 2.25 | 0.74 | 2.48 | 0.73 | −0.32 |
Oppositional | 2.77 | 0.46 | 2.79 | 0.46 | 2.69 | 0.46 | 0.22 |
Power | 2.62 | 0.65 | 2.60 | 0.65 | 2.70 | 0.64 | −0.15 |
Competitive | 2.15 | 0.87 | 2.10 | 0.89 | 2.36 | 0.79 | −0.31 |
Perfectionistic | 3.11 | 0.61 | 3.11 | 0.61 | 3.14 | 0.60 | −0.05 |
Constructive | 3.47 | 0.71 | 3.55 | 0.69 | 3.18 | 0.71 | 0.54 |
Passive/Defensive | 2.92 | 0.50 | 2.89 | 0.51 | 3.04 | 0.46 | −0.30 |
Aggressive/Defensive | 2.66 | 0.50 | 2.65 | 0.50 | 2.72 | 0.47 | −0.15 |
(a) NPP | ||||||||||||
OCI Cultures | NPP1 | NPP2 | NPP3 | NPP4 | ||||||||
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||||
Constructive | 3.47 | 0.57 | 3.61 | 0.65 | 3.57 | 0.68 | 3.52 | 0.72 | ||||
Passive/Defensive | 2.84 | 0.51 | 2.95 | 0.48 | 2.83 | 0.51 | 2.95 | 0.49 | ||||
Aggressive/Defensive | 2.52 | 0.44 | 2.72 | 0.49 | 2.59 | 0.50 | 2.71 | 0.51 | ||||
Cohen’s δ | ||||||||||||
NPP1/NPP2 | NPP1/NPP3 | NPP1/NPP4 | NPP2/NPP3 | NPP2/NPP4 | NPP3/NPP4 | |||||||
Constructive | −0.24 | −0.15 | −0.08 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.07 | ||||||
Passive/Defensive | −0.22 | 0.02 | −0.22 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.23 | ||||||
Aggressive/Defensive | −0.42 | −0.14 | −0.37 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.23 | ||||||
(b) (NPC) | ||||||||||||
OCI Cultures | NPC1 | NPC2 | NPC3 | |||||||||
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||||||
Constructive | 3.39 | 0.69 | 3.01 | 0.70 | 3.11 | 0.68 | ||||||
Passive/Defensive | 2.94 | 0.46 | 3.13 | 0.44 | 3.05 | 0.44 | ||||||
Aggressive/Defensive | 2.64 | 0.46 | 2.73 | 0.44 | 2.83 | 0.51 | ||||||
Cohen’s δ | ||||||||||||
NPC1/NPC2 | NPC1/NPC3 | NPC2/NPC3 | ||||||||||
Constructive | −0.53 | −0.40 | −0.16 | |||||||||
Passive/Defensive | 0.41 | 0.23 | 0.18 | |||||||||
Aggressive/Defensive | 0.20 | 0.39 | -0.20 |
Spanish Nuclear Industry | NPP | NPC | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facility | Headq. | Facility | Headq. | Facility | Headq. | ||||||||||
OCI Styles | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ |
Humanistic-Encouraging | 3.61 | 0.85 | 3.38 | 0.92 | 0.27 | 3.65 | 0.85 | 3.61 | 0.82 | 0.05 | 3.30 | 0.82 | 2.98 | 0.93 | 0.38 |
Affiliative | 3.69 | 0.89 | 3.43 | 0.90 | 0.29 | 3.73 | 0.90 | 3.62 | 0.85 | 0.13 | 3.38 | 0.80 | 3.11 | 0.89 | 0.32 |
Achievement | 3.40 | 0.61 | 3.30 | 0.71 | 0.16 | 3.43 | 0.60 | 3.46 | 0.63 | −0.04 | 3.20 | 0.64 | 3.04 | 0.77 | 0.24 |
Self-Actualizing | 3.39 | 0.70 | 3.25 | 0.78 | 0.20 | 3.41 | 0.70 | 3.40 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 3.25 | 0.71 | 2.98 | 0.80 | 0.35 |
Approval | 2.83 | 0.64 | 2.70 | 0.63 | 0.21 | 2.82 | 0.65 | 2.60 | 0.61 | 0.34 | 2.91 | 0.54 | 2.86 | 0.63 | 0.09 |
Conventional | 3.30 | 0.65 | 3.26 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 3.28 | 0.66 | 3.16 | 0.68 | 0.18 | 3.40 | 0.59 | 3.44 | 0.68 | −0.06 |
Dependent | 3.26 | 0.56 | 3.24 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 3.25 | 0.56 | 3.16 | 0.57 | 0.16 | 3.34 | 0.52 | 3.38 | 0.56 | −0.07 |
Avoidance | 2.28 | 0.74 | 2.26 | 0.74 | 0.03 | 2.26 | 0.75 | 2.11 | 0.67 | 0.21 | 2.42 | 0.69 | 2.51 | 0.78 | −0.13 |
Oppositional | 2.79 | 0.46 | 2.67 | 0.43 | 0.26 | 2.80 | 0.47 | 2.74 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 2.74 | 0.45 | 2.56 | 0.45 | 0.40 |
Power | 2.62 | 0.64 | 2.56 | 0.65 | 0.08 | 2.61 | 0.65 | 2.49 | 0.64 | 0.19 | 2.66 | 0.59 | 2.69 | 0.66 | −0.05 |
Competitive | 2.13 | 0.87 | 2.03 | 0.84 | 0.12 | 2.12 | 0.89 | 1.91 | 0.84 | 0.24 | 2.28 | 0.71 | 2.25 | 0.79 | 0.03 |
Perfectionistic | 3.11 | 0.61 | 3.06 | 0.61 | 0.09 | 3.11 | 0.61 | 3.09 | 0.62 | 0.04 | 3.13 | 0.57 | 3.01 | 0.60 | 0.21 |
Constructive | 3.52 | 0.69 | 3.34 | 0.77 | 0.26 | 3.55 | 0.69 | 3.52 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 3.28 | 0.67 | 3.03 | 0.79 | 0.36 |
Passive/Defensive | 2.92 | 0.49 | 2.86 | 0.53 | 0.11 | 2.90 | 0.50 | 2.76 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 3.02 | 0.42 | 3.05 | 0.54 | −0.06 |
Aggressive/Defensive | 2.67 | 0.49 | 2.58 | 0.48 | 0.17 | 2.66 | 0.50 | 2.56 | 0.49 | 0.21 | 2.70 | 0.43 | 2.63 | 0.47 | 0.16 |
Spanish Nuclear Industry | NPP | NPC | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Own Staff | Contractor | Own Staff | Contractor | Own Staff | Contractor | ||||||||||
OCI Styles | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ | M | SD | M | SD | Cohen’s δ |
Humanistic-Encouraging | 3.50 | 0.88 | 3.63 | 0.85 | −0.15 | 3.70 | 0.81 | 3.63 | 0.86 | 0.09 | 3.10 | 0.86 | 3.63 | 0.74 | −0.62 |
Affiliative | 3.54 | 0.88 | 3.73 | 0.91 | −0.21 | 3.72 | 0.85 | 3.73 | 0.91 | −0.02 | 3.20 | 0.85 | 3.66 | 0.76 | −0.54 |
Achievement | 3.36 | 0.63 | 3.39 | 0.61 | −0.05 | 3.49 | 0.58 | 3.39 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 3.12 | 0.67 | 3.35 | 0.60 | −0.35 |
Self-Actualizing | 3.34 | 0.72 | 3.38 | 0.70 | −0.06 | 3.46 | 0.68 | 3.37 | 0.70 | 0.13 | 3.09 | 0.73 | 3.48 | 0.70 | −0.53 |
Approval | 2.78 | 0.62 | 2.84 | 0.64 | −0.09 | 2.73 | 0.64 | 2.84 | 0.64 | −0.17 | 2.90 | 0.57 | 2.89 | 0.56 | 0.02 |
Conventional | 3.29 | 0.66 | 3.29 | 0.66 | 0.00 | 3.23 | 0.66 | 3.29 | 0.66 | −0.10 | 3.43 | 0.63 | 3.30 | 0.57 | 0.21 |
Dependent | 3.27 | 0.54 | 3.24 | 0.57 | 0.05 | 3.23 | 0.54 | 3.24 | 0.57 | −0.02 | 3.36 | 0.53 | 3.27 | 0.54 | 0.16 |
Avoidance | 2.29 | 0.72 | 2.28 | 0.77 | 0.01 | 2.17 | 0.69 | 2.28 | 0.77 | −0.15 | 2.51 | 0.73 | 2.23 | 0.64 | 0.39 |
Oppositional | 2.75 | 0.44 | 2.80 | 0.49 | −0.11 | 2.80 | 0.42 | 2.80 | 0.49 | −0.02 | 2.67 | 0.45 | 2.83 | 0.44 | −0.36 |
Power | 2.60 | 0.64 | 2.62 | 0.65 | −0.04 | 2.55 | 0.63 | 2.62 | 0.65 | −0.12 | 2.71 | 0.64 | 2.58 | 0.57 | 0.20 |
Competitive | 2.12 | 0.84 | 2.16 | 0.91 | −0.05 | 1.98 | 0.82 | 2.16 | 0.92 | −0.21 | 2.38 | 0.80 | 2.14 | 0.65 | 0.30 |
Perfectionistic | 3.15 | 0.59 | 3.07 | 0.63 | 0.13 | 3.14 | 0.58 | 3.07 | 0.63 | 0.12 | 3.15 | 0.61 | 3.03 | 0.55 | 0.20 |
Constructive | 3.44 | 0.71 | 3.53 | 0.69 | −0.14 | 3.59 | 0.66 | 3.53 | 0.69 | 0.09 | 3.13 | 0.71 | 3.53 | 0.62 | −0.57 |
Passive/Defensive | 2.91 | 0.50 | 2.91 | 0.49 | −0.01 | 2.84 | 0.50 | 2.91 | 0.50 | −0.15 | 3.05 | 0.46 | 2.92 | 0.40 | 0.28 |
Aggressive/Defensive | 2.65 | 0.48 | 2.66 | 0.52 | −0.02 | 2.61 | 0.47 | 2.66 | 0.52 | −0.10 | 2.73 | 0.48 | 2.65 | 0.42 | 0.18 |
Spanish Nuclear Industry | Nuclear Power Plants | Nuclear Public Companies | |
---|---|---|---|
Sector | The dominant cultural style is “Constructive” (3.47), followed by “Passive/Defensive” (2.91) and “Aggressive/Defensive” (2.66). The main differences in this survey are found in the “Humanistic−Encouraging” and “Affiliative” styles. | Homogeneity between plants in the “Constructive” culture. Differences between plants in the “Defensive” cultures. | Differences between organizations in the “Constructive” style (medium effect size δ = 0.53). Multiple differences in terms of styles. |
Location | Facility personnel score higher in the “Constructive” culture than headquarters personnel. | Facility personnel have higher scores in the “Defensive” style than headquarters personnel. | Headquarters personnel have higher scores in the “Constructive” culture than facility personnel. |
Contractual relationship | No differences in terms of contractual relationship. | No differences in terms of contractual relationship. | Results obtained from one single organization. Contractors score higher in the “Constructive” culture. The largest size magnitude in the survey is in the “Humanistic−Encouraging” (δ = 0.62) style. |
(a) Organizational cultures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Constructive | Passive/Defensive | Aggressive/Defensive | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mintzberg Component | N | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | ||||||||||||||
a Strategic Apex | 14 | 3.59 | 0.54 | 2.57 | 0.33 | 2.38 | 0.29 | |||||||||||||||||
b Middle Line | 27 | 3.45 | 0.51 | 2.77 | 0.52 | 2.46 | 0.37 | |||||||||||||||||
c Operating Core | 133 | 3.44 | 0.53 | 2.92 | 0.50 | d | 2.61 | 0.43 | d | |||||||||||||||
d Technostructure | 36 | 3.43 | 0.75 | 2.61 | 0.46 | c | 2.38 | 0.41 | c | |||||||||||||||
e Support Staff | 72 | 3.58 | 0.56 | 2.88 | 0.47 | 2.47 | 0.50 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 282 | 3.48 | 0.57 | 2.84 | 0.49 | 2.52 | 0.44 | |||||||||||||||||
(b) Constructive Styles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Humanistic Encouraging | Affiliative | Achievement | Self-Actualizing | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mintzberg Component | N | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | |||||||||||
a Strategic Apex | 14 | 3.81 | 0.65 | 3.52 | 0.58 | 3.54 | 0.52 | 3.47 | 0.60 | |||||||||||||||
b Middle Line | 27 | 3.57 | 0.71 | 3.53 | 0.63 | 3.38 | 0.37 | 3.33 | 0.56 | |||||||||||||||
c Operating Core | 133 | 3.47 | 0.67 | 3.52 | 0.67 | 3.35 | 0.47 | 3.41 | 0.59 | |||||||||||||||
d Technostructure | 36 | 3.52 | 0.84 | 3.50 | 0.94 | 3.32 | 0.65 | 3.39 | 0.79 | |||||||||||||||
e Support Staff | 72 | 3.64 | 0.69 | 3.76 | 0.66 | 3.43 | 0.54 | 3.50 | 0.64 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 282 | 3.55 | 0.70 | 3.58 | 0.70 | 3.38 | 0.51 | 3.42 | 0.63 | |||||||||||||||
(c) Passive/Defensive Styles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approval | Conventional | Dependent | Avoidance | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mintzberg Component | N | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | |||||||||||
a Strategic Apex | 14 | 2.43 | 0.57 | 2.92 | 0.47 | 3.08 | 0.48 | 1.84 | 0.35 | |||||||||||||||
b Middle Line | 27 | 2.64 | 0.68 | 3.15 | 0.65 | 3.14 | 0.56 | 2.14 | 0.67 | |||||||||||||||
c Operating Core | 133 | 2.82 | 0.63 | d | 3.31 | 0.63 | 3.27 | 0.55 | 2.26 | 0.63 | d | |||||||||||||
d Technostructure | 36 | 2.47 | 0.59 | c/e | 3.00 | 0.55 | 3.12 | 0.51 | 1.84 | 0.60 | c | |||||||||||||
e Support Staff | 72 | 2.87 | 0.63 | d | 3.25 | 0.60 | 3.28 | 0.54 | 2.09 | 0.59 | ||||||||||||||
Total | 282 | 2.75 | 0.64 | 3.22 | 0.62 | 3.23 | 0.54 | 2.13 | 0.62 | |||||||||||||||
(d) Aggressive/Defensive Styles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oppositional | Power | Competitive | Perfectionistic | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mintzberg Component | N | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | M | SD | Sig | |||||||||||
a Strategic Apex | 14 | 2.71 | 0.34 | 2.29 | 0.41 | 1.63 | 0.61 | 2.88 | 0.44 | |||||||||||||||
b Middle Line | 27 | 2.73 | 0.39 | 2.36 | 0.53 | 1.81 | 0.64 | 2.94 | 0.44 | |||||||||||||||
c Operating Core | 133 | 2.79 | 0.41 | 2.46 | 0.59 | 2.02 | 0.68 | 3.18 | 0.53 | d | ||||||||||||||
d Technostructure | 36 | 2.60 | 0.33 | 2.24 | 0.59 | 1.77 | 0.60 | 2.89 | 0.53 | c | ||||||||||||||
e Support Staff | 72 | 2.69 | 0.46 | 2.28 | 0.65 | 1.94 | 0.73 | 2.97 | 0.53 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 282 | 2.73 | 0.41 | 2.37 | 0.60 | 1.93 | 0.68 | 3.05 | 0.53 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Badia, E.; Navajas, J.; Losilla, J.-M. Organizational Culture and Subcultures in the Spanish Nuclear Industry. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3454. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103454
Badia E, Navajas J, Losilla J-M. Organizational Culture and Subcultures in the Spanish Nuclear Industry. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(10):3454. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103454
Chicago/Turabian StyleBadia, Eulàlia, Joaquín Navajas, and Josep-Maria Losilla. 2020. "Organizational Culture and Subcultures in the Spanish Nuclear Industry" Applied Sciences 10, no. 10: 3454. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103454
APA StyleBadia, E., Navajas, J., & Losilla, J.-M. (2020). Organizational Culture and Subcultures in the Spanish Nuclear Industry. Applied Sciences, 10(10), 3454. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103454