Culture a Mechanistic Culture Exhibits

Culture

A mechanistic culture exhibits many qualities common to a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is typically characterized with clear and distinct role designations. In addition, bureaucracies have many layer and clear lines of authority. These layers typically create a culture of methodical, slow action, with little room for flexibility. Organizational roles are centered, primarily around narrow specifications such as "finance," or "accounting." Through these forms of mechanistic culture, departments tend to be loyal to one another within their direct reports. However, as the case with many bureaucracies, inter-departmental animosity may arise due primarily to allocation of capital or funds. A mechanistic culture often resists change as it is a deviation from the accustomed norms of the organization.

In regards to socialization, many of the above elements become more profound. For instance, socialization agents are typically supervisors or managers in which the individual reports directly to. These socialization agents tend to create clear expectations in regards to role responsibility and performance evaluations. In addition, supervisors tend to focus solely on the delivery of pre-determined metrics rather than the individual. During the pre-employment stage of socialization, individuals often focus on their narrowly define role, mentioned earlier. They tend to focus on observations of co-workers and other socialization agents. In a mechanistic structure, many of the prevailing attitudes, principles and though processes are similar to one another. As such, the pre-employment phase has the individual getting acquainted with these behaviors and characteristics. During the encounter stage, a mechanistic culture often tests expectations of the individual. This comes in the form of supervisor socialization agents through performance reviews and feedback regarding expectations. The final stage of role management the individual may become better acquainted with his role and assimilate within the organization, or chose another role within the bureaucratic structure of the organization. If the latter option is chosen, then the entire process starts over in regards to socialization.

Now in an organic organization, the process of socialization is vastly different. In an organic organization, the departmental boundaries, hierarchy, levels of authority, and regulations are vastly diminished. The emphasis is instead placed on task completion, team work, candor, and the free flow of information. The culture emphasizes flexibility, change, and innovation. Socialization therefore tends to focus on individuals and the overall skillset they provide. Tasks are often multifaceted requiring new and innovative solutions. External competition is generally fierce, requiring the organization to adapt and change quickly. The socialization agents in this form of organization tend to have a more entrepreneurial culture that relies heavily on acquired divergent skills. An individual may be required to conduct financing activities while also being a sales consultant. Socialization agents are often working together for the common goal of the organization which results in very random occurrences.

Now, both forms of socialization do have similarities. For instance, both have some for authoritarian role and clear roles. In an organic organization, employees know and realize the CEO of the organization just as they would in a mechanistic organization. Both have socialization agents to assist an individual with becoming acclimated into a particular culture as well. These similarities and differences are displayed on the CVF typology below. Notice that the profit driver for organic organizations is that of innovation. Looking at the figure below, innovation is predicated on flexibility and external focus. Likewise, the profit driver for mechanistic organizations is an intense internal focus combined with strict control. This bureaucracy creates steady and dependable performance.

When merging two different organizational cultures together, there are four distinct strategies in which to properly do so. These strategies are enumerated below and consist of:

1) Assimilation: acquired company embraces acquiring firm's culture values

2) Deculturation: acquiring firm imposes its culture on unwilling acquired firm

3) Integration: cultures combined into a new composite culture

4) Separation: merging companies remain separate with their own culture

All the above mentioned strategies have their unique strengths and weakness. Depending on the prevailing circumstances, leaders will choose the most effective process in order to obtain synergy.

Assimilation occurs when employees at the acquired company willingly embrace the cultural values of the acquiring organization. This strategy works best when the acquired company has a weak culture that is dysfunctional, whereas the acquiring company's culture is strong and focused on clearly defined values. In this instance, the stronger culture can easily consumer the lesser culture. Employees tend to be more receptive due primarily to the lack of culture and also by the prestige and power of the acquiring firm. Assimilation often occurs will smaller, less established companies being acquired by much larger competitors. As the company is just beginning to emerge, many culture qualities have not become entrenched. Assimilation however, is very rare in the context of mergers.

What is a more common strategy is that of deculturation. This is due primarily to the fact that employees usually resist organizational change, particularly when they are asked to throw away personal and cultural values. Under these conditions, some acquiring companies apply a deculturation strategy by imposing their culture and business practices on the acquired organization. The acquiring firm strips away artifacts and reward systems that support the old culture. People who cannot adopt the acquiring company's culture are often terminated. This strategy can be particularly troublesome as it creates factions within the organization. These factions often possess talented personnel who otherwise would contribute mightily to the organization. However, due to their overall disdain for the new company they are unmotivated and unproductive. This causes problems as company and employee moral is significantly diminished within the organization. In addition, as the company attempts to impose its own values on the organization, many of the older individuals tend to move to competitors, causing competitive disadvantages.

A third strategy and arguable most effective strategy, is to simply integrate the corporate cultures of both organizations. This strategy involves combining the two or more cultures into a new composite culture that preserves the best features of the previous cultures. When company cultures include several overlapping values this strategy is the most effective. Integration also works best when people realize that their existing cultures are ineffective and are therefore motivated to adopt a new set of dominant values. Integration also works well in terms of merger related costs. If both companies are already similar in both industry and values, integration will occur in a much more seamless fashion. If not however, the integration would be time consuming and cumbersome.

A separation strategy occurs when the merging companies agree to remain distinct entities with minimal exchange of culture or organizational practices. This strategy is most appropriate when the two merging companies are in unrelated industries or operate in different countries, because the most appropriate cultural values tend to differ by industry and national culture. This strategy could fail as the unified company now must allocate resources to two distinct parties. If the company doesn't have a unified culture it may allocate funds based on bias and personal preference. This could cause animosity and angst between the two distinct companies.