University of Pannonia
Doctoral School of Management Sciences and Business Administration
Nick Chandler
The alignment of organisational subcultures
in a post-merger Business School in
Hungarian Higher Education
Doctoral (PhD) Dissertation - Repertory of the Theses
Supervisor: Dr. Heidrich Balázs
Veszprém
2015
Contents
1
Statement of the problem ...................................................................................1
2
Empirical study ..................................................................................................2
2.1 Purpose and scope of the study ...........................................................................2
2.2 The structure of the research ...............................................................................2
2.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................4
2.4 Research model ..................................................................................................4
2.5 Hypotheses .........................................................................................................5
2.6 A profile of the organisation ...............................................................................5
2.7 Method used to test the hypotheses .....................................................................6
2.8 Theses ................................................................................................................8
3
The significance of the research results ............................................................14
4
Directions for Future Research .........................................................................16
5
References .......................................................................................................19
6
Publications .....................................................................................................22
List of figures
Figure 1: The research model for the study…………………………………………….4
Figure 2: The contributions of subcultures to market-orientation………………….…14
Figure 3: An approach to aligning subcultures in the organisation…………………...17
1
Statement of the problem
As of September 2012, Hungarian higher education institutions (HEIs) were to be
deeply affected by the government’s plans to reduce funding for students, primarily
those studying business-related degrees. Student applications for 2012 dropped by a
third compared to 2011 (Temesi, 2012). Budget cuts in Hungary led to the 2012
government funding for higher education being only half of the 2008 figure.
With an uncertain future, a cultural perspective is the means by which institutional
responses can be anticipated, understood and even managed (Dill, 1982; Tierney, 1988).
As HEIs try to adapt to new circumstances, the composition of culture requires
consideration as, for example, a homogenous culture may require a very different
approach from one which is fragmented or composed of subcultures, especially when
taking into account the potential resistance to change. Furthermore, discovering the
bases for the formation of subcultures may shape recruitment strategies for the future as
the organisation seeks staff that is not only capable of fitting into the culture, but the
subculture as well. Moreover, the degree of homogeneity, bases for formation and types
of subcultures all serve as crucial data for developing a change management process by
which an organisation may seek to align subcultures to the desired culture type or
orientation.
Kuh and Whitt (1988; 121) pointed out that little empirical research has been
undertaken with a focus on faculty and subcultures within HEIs, even though studies
into the organisational HEIs indicate they are complex and rarely homogenous (Martin
2002; Trice 1993; Becher 1987). Moreover, central to our understanding of
organisational behaviour is the issue of drawing up cultural boundaries not only at an
organisational level but also on a group level as “it is only by understanding the parts
…we can understand the whole” (Becher 1987; 298). Recent studies have recognised
the complexity of organisational culture in higher education (Parker 2011; Bailey 2011;
Fralinger et al., 2010).
In light of recent changes, the market orientation of HEIs may be seen as a critical
success factor affecting the survival of the organisation in a competitive local and
international market as a failure to adjust may result in an inability to meet market
demands on both the international stage and at a local level. This study identifies the
perceived market-orientation of subcultures as a means of considering how these
perceptions may affect a desired market orientation in the organisation. There have been
studies concerned with market-orientation in Higher Education (Hemsley-Brown and
Oplatka, 2010; Cervera et al. 2001; Gibbs, 2001; Caruana et al., 1998) and studies in
Higher Education indicate there is indeed a tendency towards a market-orientation
(Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2010; Mitra 2009; Häyrinen-Alestalo and Peltola, 2006)
and that external pressures are increasing this tendency (Rivera-Camino and Molero
Ayala, 2010; Kalpazidou Schmidt and Langberg 2007).
Previous organisational culture research has paid limited attention to the values and
beliefs of lower level employees with the assumption that management represent all
1
employees, belaying further assumptions of the understanding, willingness and ability
of all staff to conform to the management’s espoused values (Detert et al., 2000; 858).
My research into the composition of organisational culture and the nature of subcultures
has used the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument developed by Cameron and
Quinn (1999) and utilized the concept of cultural congruence, which refers to cultural
distance between organisational cultures. This study considers cultural congruence from
a number of aspects: within subcultures; across subcultures and in relation to the greater
organisation. This study also investigates whether there is an apparent need to align
subcultures or not in this organisation. Hopkins, Hopkins and Mallette (2005) highlight
this need in organisations as a means of creating competitive advantage, through
reducing subculture constraints on corporate core values and vision (Hopkins et al.
(2005: 136).
The methodology employed in this study should not only be of interest to organisations
in the education sector but also to other large complex organisations as a means of
identifying subcultures and their orientation which in turn could be considered in terms
of compatibility with the overall direction of the organisation or highlight the need to
align subcultures which are at odds with the management’s desired strategy. An
examination of the potential impact of the market-orientation of subcultures in a postmerger case may raise important questions concerning acculturation, post-merger
culture fit or clash and the effect of the subcultural context on organizational orientation
and effectiveness. Finally, one major practical contribution is to provide insight for the
management of the organisation and other institutions into issues warranting
consideration when embarking on a change in course towards a market-orientation.
2
Empirical study
2.1 Purpose and scope of the study
The study investigated employees' orientations, values and perceptions in the case of a
HEI in Hungary, with the following aims:
· To explore the composition of the organisational culture in terms of the degree of
homogeneity, heterogeneity or fragmentation within and across subcultures and
in relation to the organisation;
· To uncover the culture types, perceptions and characteristics of the
organisation’s overarching culture and subcultures;
· To examine hidden complexities between culture type and perceived market
orientation for the subcultures.
2.2 The structure of the research
This study deals with two key aspects of a HEI: the complexity of the organisational
culture and the market-orientation, more specifically, the market-orientation of an HEI
in Hungary.
2
To identify the subcultures and their corresponding culture types in this organisation, an
empirical study was undertaken using quantitative research. A questionnaire was sent
out to employees from all areas and levels of the organisation about their values
(preferred culture), the perceived state of the organisation and the perceived marketorientation of the organisation, as well as certain demographic data. Data collection took
place in 2011 and 2012. Although a qualitative study was undertaken in 2013 based on
the quantitative findings, the results were omitted due to limitations on the length of the
dissertation.
The methodology employed to identify subcultures was first introduced by Hofstede
(1998) in a study of the organisational culture of a large Danish insurance company of
3,400 employees. A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method was undertaken.
This produced a dendrogram through which significant clusters can be detected. This
method has also been used by Tan and Vathanophas (2003) to identify the subcultures
of 230 knowledge workers in Singapore.
The organisational culture assessment instrument (OCAI) (Cameron and Quinn, 1999),
used in this study is based upon the Competing Values Framework (Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1983). The OCAI has also been used in Hungary as a means of assessing
culture types in Bulgarian, Hungarian and Serbian enterprises (Gaál et al., 2010), and
has been used in higher education (Berrio, 2003; Ebeid and Gadelrab, 2009). The
framework allows a culture or subculture to have competing values simultaneously
rather than a single culture type in a combination of four culture types (adhocracy,
market, hierarchy and clan) with one type being the most dominant in each culture or
subculture.
The second instrument used is the market orientation (MO) questionnaire (HemsleyBrown and Oplatka, 2010). This questionnaire was designed specifically for use in
higher education. Based upon the work of Narver and Slater (1990), Hemsley-Brown
and Oplatka (2010) developed this instrument with the following three dimensions:
customer orientation; competition orientation; and cooperation (interfunctional)
orientation.
To ensure reliability of the translation of the questionnaire from the English to
Hungarian version, the questionnaire was translated from English to Hungarian and then
back-translated to ensure comprehension and reliability. This is referred to as semantic
equivalence and ensures that the meaning is the same after translation into the target
language (Flaherty et al., 1988).
A pilot study was conducted in the Spring Semester of 2011 prior to the main stage of
questionnaire distribution and data gathering, which occurred in the following two
semesters. The sample chosen for the pilot study was a purposive sample aimed at
representatives from all areas of the organisation and three main occupation types:
administrative, teaching and management. The surveys were administered and the
estimated sample size was expected to be about 400-500 from a total of 959 employees.
369 completed questionnaires were received (38.5%), from which 3.5% were either
incomplete or invalid due to miscalculations in the OCAI, giving a final sample of 35%
3
(334 employees). Data was input case by case, with the data coded and later
standardized for analysis using SPSS 17.0.
2.3 Research Questions
The research questions have been formulated with the premise that subcultures exist in
large complex organisations, such as higher education institutions:
RQ1. What type of subcultures form in this organisation?
RQ2. Are subcultures entirely homogenous or have elements of heterogeneity?
RQ3. Does the existence of subcultures enhance the organisation’s market orientation?
2.4 Research model
To answer the research questions, a research model was developed and is presented on a
subcultural level in the following figure:
Figure 1: The research model for the study
Cultural aspects
Subculture cultural
dimensions
· Dominant
characteristics
· Organizational
leadership
· Management of
employees
· Organisation
glue
· Strategic
emphasis
· Criteria of
success
H5
Subculture Type
(perceived and preferred)
· Clan
· Adhocracy
· Market
· Hierarchical
·
·
·
H6
H2
H8
Enhancing
Orthogonal
Counter
H9
H3
General aspects
Subculture
demographics
· Age
· Gender
· Position
· Tenure
· Location
· Faculty
Subculture Type
· Enhancing
· Orthogonal
· Counter
Market aspects
Subculture
characteristics
· Size
· Homogeneity
H4
H7
H1
4
Subculture market
orientation
· Student
· Competition
· Cooperation
(interfunctional)
2.5 Hypotheses
Based on the research questions put forward and this research model, hypotheses have
been put forward and are stated below in relation to each of the three research questions:
Research question: What type of subcultures form in this organisation?
H1: Subculture chief characteristics are on the basis of pre-merger divisions rather
than demographics such as age, gender, tenure
H2: Subcultures perceive themselves as having core values in line with the
organisation as a whole. That is to say, they perceive themselves as enhancing
subcultures with the same dominant culture type as the subculture type
H3: Members of clan-type subcultures have longer tenures than those of market-type
subcultures
Research question: Are subcultures entirely homogenous or have elements of
heterogeneity?
H4: The larger the subculture, the greater homogeneity within the subculture
H5: All subcultures prefer the clan culture type to be the dominant characteristic of
the organisation
H6: Organisational leadership is perceived as more based on a market-culture than
members of subcultures would prefer
Research question: Does the existence of subcultures enhance the organisation’s
market orientation? (i.e. what impact do the subcultures have upon market
orientation?)
H7: The lower the heterogeneity within subcultures, the greater the market orientation
(student, competition and cooperation combined)
H8: Clan culture types have the same level of market-orientation (student,
competition and cooperation combined) as market-culture types
H9: For all subcultures the strongest relationship exists between the student and
cooperation orientations
2.6 A profile of the organisation
The organisation was formed as part of a merger between three colleges that took place
in 2000. Two of these colleges were formed in 1857 with the other commencing in
1957. Each college has a particular focus, be it commerce and management, finance and
accounting or tourism and catering and offer courses ranging from foundation courses
and vocational courses through to Masters’ and PhDs. The three colleges are situated in
5
locations around Budapest, one of the colleges having two satellite institutions based in
the North and South-West of Hungary. In 2011, one of the satellites achieved
independent status for itself and became the fourth faculty of the organisation. This
handover took place at the time of the research, but as significant organisational culture
change occurs over the long term rather than short term, the fourth Faculty has been
treated as remaining a part of the Faculty, as existed prior to the change.
The merger was forced upon the three HEIs and as a result, it became the fifth largest
Hungarian HEI with approximately 22,000 students. From an organisational culture
point of view the fact that the colleges remained on their own campuses rather than on
one shared location seems a significant barrier to integration. A matrix form of
organisational structure was introduced and each department of each college became
accountable to both the Dean as well as the Head of Institutes. The Head of Institutes
are thus responsible for departments within all three of the colleges. This encourages
and maintains integration and homogeneity between colleges.
The harmonisation process of the three colleges following the merger appears to be a
slow one with some colleagues only experiencing conflicts due to demands for
harmonisation of departments only in recent years. The varying degrees of complication
and need for acculturation between organisational cultures associated with mergers are
likely to impact upon the subcultures therein.
The decrease in funding of students and smaller budgets has put the organisation at a
competitive disadvantage in the local market as the majority of the courses are in
tourism, finance and management. However, thanks to its good reputation as a school
and especially regarding the prospects of students upon receiving their diploma of
finding work, the organisation has not been as hard hit as many others in Hungary.
Nevertheless, there is a distinct increase in pressure to survive in the face of competition
and attract students to the organisation.
2.7 Methods used to test the hypotheses
According to Boisnier and Chatman (2002) there is no single definition of an
organizational subculture. Research has been undertaken concerning sub-groups (Van
de Ven & Ferry, 1980), but there is a caveat: not all sub-groups can be considered
subcultures. Boisnier and Chatman (2002; 6) refer to subcultures as “groups whose
common characteristic is a set of shared norms and beliefs”. Whereas subgroups form
around existing subdivisions, such as departmental or functional groups, subcultures
may not necessarily do so. Trice and Beyer (1993) highlight that subcultures may not in
fact be unconsciously or intentionally formed.
To identify the composition of culture in the organisation, a dendogram was created
through a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method (Hofstede, 1998). It was
clear from the dendogram that significant jumps occurred from the point beyond which
5 clusters were found. Within the matrix structure of this organisation, more than 70%
of the staff had indicated significant interaction across faculties and locations with
teaching staff working at more than one location in the organisation. With interaction,
6
shared tasks and common values, these clusters could be considered as five subcultures,
although it could not be determined if these were formed unconsciously or intentionally.
In order to discover the most common characteristics for each subculture (H1:
subculture chief characteristics are on the basis of pre-merger divisions rather than
demographics such as age, gender, tenure), the characteristics found in the literature as
possible chief characteristics of subcultures were: age, gender, tenure, position,
location(s) for work, and faculty. The first page of the questionnaire contained this
demographic data. Initially department was also included in the questionnaire but this
was later omitted due to respondents in the pilot sample feeling uneasy about the ease
with which they could be identified if department was included in addition to age and
position. Once subcultures had been identified according to common values, the
demographic data for each subculture was used to find a common basis for formation.
For the second hypothesis (H2: Subcultures perceive themselves as having core values
in line with the organisation as a whole. That is to say, they perceive themselves as
enhancing subcultures with the same dominant culture type as the subculture type),
subcultural perceptions and values were examined according to the four types of the
Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) by using a t-test of the
differences between perceived values of the organisation and actual values for
subculture.
The third hypothesis (H3: Members of clan-type subcultures have longer tenures than
those of market-type subcultures) concerned subculture type in relation to tenure. This
hypothesis was initiated after the review indicated there wasn’t a determinable dominant
culture type in higher education, but the clan type was found in a number of studies in
Hungary and of higher education institutions. It seemed to me that the clan type was
associated with the times before the change of regime in Hungary and those with this
nostalgia might be forming subcultures on this basis. Therefore, the decision was made
to base the hypothesis upon tenure. Using tenure as a continuous variable and culture
type as the categorical variable, a two-step cluster analysis was undertaken using SPSS.
The fourth hypothesis was concerned with the level of homogeneity of values within the
subcultures (H4: The larger the subculture, the greater the homogeneity within the
subculture). Standard deviation assesses how far the values are spread above and below
the mean and in this way, based on the mean for each subculture, the standard deviation
gives an indication of the extent of homogeneity / heterogeneity of values expressed by
respondents in that the higher the standard deviation, the greater the difference in values
of members from the average for the subculture. The linearity of the relationship
between subculture size and standard deviation was further demonstrated in a graph and
then a bivariate analysis was undertaken using SPSS to ensure that this relationship was
significant.
When considering subcultural preferences (values), the fifth hypothesis (H5: All
subcultures prefer the clan culture type to be the dominant characteristic of the
organisation) was concerned with the first dimension of the OCAI called the ‘dominant
characteristics’ and refers to the dominant characteristics of the organisation, both those
7
perceived by each respondent and those preferred. For each subculture the preferred
values were averaged for each culture type as a means of considering the dominant
preferred culture type by subculture.
Another dimension of the OCAI was entitled ‘organisational leadership’ (H6:
Organisational leadership is perceived as more based on a market-culture than
members of subcultures would prefer) and the sixth hypothesis was concerned with the
difference between perceptions and values for organisational leadership. A paired
difference t-test was undertaken to consider significant differences between perceptions
and values of the market culture type dominating leadership.
The final three hypotheses were concerned with market-orientation and subcultures. The
seventh hypothesis (H7: The lower the heterogeneity within subcultures, the greater the
market orientation [student, competition and cooperation combined]) was concerned
with homogeneity and was initially tested using the deviation of values given by
respondents in each subculture and comparing these results across subcultures.
Although there was no evident correlation, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
employed as a means of determining any correlation and the associated significance.
An ANOVA analysis was undertaken to consider the eighth hypothesis (H8: Clan
culture types have as high a market-orientation (student, competition and cooperation
combined) as market-culture types to determine significant relationships between values
and market-orientation for the subcultures.
For the ninth hypothesis (H9: For all subcultures the strongest relationship exists
between the student and cooperation orientations), Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
used as a means of ascertaining the relationship between the three elements of market
orientation (student, cooperation and competition) and the associated significance.
2.8 Theses
T1:
A matrix structure does not guarantee conformity of values or a single monolithic
culture and pre-existing divisions found in previous studies cannot be assumed to
exist in subcultures, regardless of the similarities between studies.
T2:
Whilst countercultures may be deviant subcultures, countercultures may not
emerge in the organisation out of a conscious decision to oppose existing
organisational values as members of countercultures may not see themselves as
counter to the values of the organisation; and conversely, members of enhancing
cultures may believe their subculture is setting a new path, when in fact it is
doing nothing of the sort.
T3:
In a large complex organisation, employees with similar values are not
guaranteed to belong to the same subculture, as similar subculture types may be
divided by other differences such as strength of values and length of tenure.
Subcultures may share values with one another but not with the organisation.
8
Thus, a subculture may be an enhancing subculture not for the organisation
culture, but for another subculture.
T4:
Subcultures are formed through interaction and interaction causes the sharing of
values, and the larger the subcultures, the larger the potential for interaction and
the sharing of values through a higher number of members, resulting in greater
homogeneity of values within the subculture.
T5:
The dominant culture type of a subculture cannot be assumed to be the desired
organisational leadership type as subcultures may prefer the organisational
leadership to exhibit values and traits that are lacking in the subculture and may
be seen as more desirable in leadership.
T6:
Subcultures within an organisation cannot be simply categorized as
heterogeneous or homogenous and the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity
may be dependent upon the theme investigated such as leadership or desired
dominant characteristic of the organisation. Furthermore, amongst other possible
variables, size has an impact upon the degree of homogeneity experienced within
the subculture.
T7:
There can be no single change process for alignment of all subcultures in a
particular organisation as subcultures have a range of common and differing
values, with each culture varying in the extent of commonality relative to the
desired direction of the organisation and each subculture containing a varying
combination of desirable and undesirable values and perceptions i.e. the
alignment process must be subculture specific and subculture-centred.
T8:
There is a direct strong relationship between the student orientation and
cooperation orientation for subcultures in the organisation, leading to the
outcome that as the student orientation increases, the cooperation (cooperation)
orientation will also increase in subcultures and vice versa.
T9:
Market-orientation in the higher education institution refers to a combined
external focus on competition and an internal focus on cooperation and the
student, resulting in clan and hierarchy culture types - not usually associated with
market orientation - being seen as market-oriented.
T10: Organisational culture may be composed of a combination of subcultures with
the same culture type, a dominant subculture and outliers, exhibiting signs of
integration, differentiation and fragmentation simultaneously within one
organisation (as shown in the figure) and that subcultures have a dual nature of
pivotal values in relation to the organisation and other subcultures e.g. they may
be counter to the organisation and enhancing in relation to another subculture.
T11: Multiculturalism is the preferred perceptive of organisational culture in the
organisation as each subculture type has a particular ‘specialisation’ on one
9
particular element of market orientation, through which a combination of these
subcultures leads to ‘all bases being covered’.
The research has revealed that five distinct subcultures indicate values are not shared
across the organisation (thesis 1). Furthermore, it was apparent from the findings that
subcultures perceived the organisation’s culture type differently. The matrix structure
has not resulted in unity and sharing. This is especially seen larger subcultures,
subculture one (140 members) and subculture two (84 members). Bartlett and Ghosal
(1990) reported a potential downside to a matrix structure in that it may lead to conflict
and confusion with informational ‘bottle-necks’ and overlapping responsibilities. The
concept of dual reporting has resulted in a loss of accountability as subcultures appear
content with their subculture types (and therefore values) being at odds with those of the
organisation, and the misinterpretations and range of differences in values may be
indicative of this downside of the matrix structure.
The second part of the first thesis is also concerned with the studies that have a predefined basis for subcultures and was related to the first hypothesis that subculture chief
characteristics are on the basis of pre-merger divisions rather than demographics such
as age, gender, tenure, which was rejected. In studies in higher education, the formation
of subcultures was based upon department, faculty, specialisation (e.g. Becher, 1987),
as well as on other factors such as gender, age, experience (tenure) and function. Studies
made in higher education assume the basis for the formation of subcultures based on
previous similar studies and then conduct an analysis using the assumed basis for
formation (e.g. Rodriguez, 1995; Lin & Ha, 2009; Billups, 2011). This thesis asserts
that this assumption is a false one as it cannot be generally applied to all studies, and
may lead to false findings. It was found that subcultures are not split by age, faculty,
gender, location, occupation or tenure. This is not to say that there is no basis for
formation. From the findings each subculture could be profiled according to its specific
characteristics, but there is not one single variable that could be seen as a distinguishing
factor across all subcultures. Similar studies from beyond the higher education sector
such as Hofstede (1998) that start with a process for identifying subcultures make little
or no mention of the problems of pre-assuming the basis for formation, despite an
displaying an unwillingness to use any pre-existing basis claimed in other studies. The
fact that values were shared across faculties, department and locations may be an
indication that the matrix structure has resulted in subcultural boundaries extending
beyond those found in the literature such as location and department.
The research has also highlighted an area for further research based upon the existing
findings to indicate that beyond the existing three categories of subcultures (enhancing,
orthogonal and counter), consideration must be given for whether the subculture
perceives itself as an enhancing (sharing the same pivotal and peripheral values as the
organisation), orthogonal (sharing the pivotal but not the peripheral values with the
organisation) or counter culture (both peripheral and pivotal values are at odds with the
organisation’s values), regardless of whether or not this is the reality. The findings of
the study also indicate that when aligning subcultures to an organisation’s values
(Hopkins et al., 2005) from a strategic point of view, members may not be aware of
their misalignment with the organisation. Further research would be needed to examine
10
the merging of subcultures (e.g. departments) over a period of time and determine
whether management should intervene or that values in a merged subculture naturally
evolve towards an enhancing subculture.
One finding from this study was that subcultures exist with the same values and
dominant types but to differing extents. For the dominant clan and hierarchy types, it
was found that there were two subcultures with the same type but with wildly differing
strength of values. In each case one of the clan and hierarchy subcultures had almost
double the values of the corresponding culture type. Although one case is insufficient
for generalising this unusual nature of subcultural boundaries, there is potential for
further research into whether subcultures exist with the same type, but divided by the
strength of values. This corresponds to the concept of strong and weak cultures but
differentiating between strong and weak subcultural values amongst the subcultures
rather than in relation to the entire organisation. Furthermore, the research has shown
that subcultures are not entirely heterogeneous and that, building upon the findings of
Schein’s (1985) pivotal and peripheral values, the strength of those pivotal and
peripheral values are also a determining factor in the boundaries between subcultures in
the organisation.
The existing premise for the preferred culture in many higher education institutions and
in Hungary seemed to be a clan culture type (e.g. Shirbagi, 2007) in the past and the
current pressures were pointing towards a market-culture type. The research revealed
that tenure was a potential divisive factor through the contrast in tenure lengths for
market and clan types as members of the market subculture tend to have a lower tenure
than those of the two clan subcultures.
The research has revealed that larger subcultures have greater homogeneity in this
organisation. In a matrix organisation, the interaction may yet be at a greater level when
compared with other more hierarchical structured organisations in higher education,
although further research would be required to confirm this. Increased subculture size
appears to result in the ‘smoothing out’ of differences in values between members in the
subculture. Thus, if the strength or weakness of a (sub)culture is claimed by Nahavandi
and Malekzadeh (1993: 19) to include ‘thickness’ of the subculture (the number of
shared beliefs, values and assumptions, the proportion of organizational members who
share in the basic assumptions and the clarity of the order of values and assumptions in
terms of which are major and which are minor), then the findings indicate that two of
these elements are found in larger subcultures, thus indicating the potential for larger
subcultures to also have stronger cultures. Further research would have to be undertaken
to confirm the possibility, but it seems from these preliminary findings not only that
there is strength in numbers, but that there is a stronger culture in larger numbers. This
would be important to practitioners as a strong culture not only provides a strong sense
of identity and clear behaviours and expectations, it is also more prone to resisting
change.
In the organisation, the study has revealed that organisational leadership is perceived as
more based on a market-culture than members of subcultures would prefer. According
to the Competing Values Framework, leadership roles vary according to the four
11
quadrants as follows: for the clan culture, the roles are of a facilitator and mentor; for
the adhocracy culture, the roles are those of innovator and broker; for the market
culture, the leadership roles are as director and producer; and for the hierarchy culture,
the roles are monitor and coordinator (Belason and Frank, 2008). Therefore, leadership
is perceived as having the role of director and producer, which may tie in with the
current approach of top-down communication and oligarchic governance.
The research question concerning whether subcultures are entirely homogenous or have
elements of heterogeneity was based upon conflicting studies finding one or the other.
However, the research has revealed that subcultures in the organisation cannot be
considered entirely heterogeneous or heterogeneous as they have values that are
considered in line with the organisation and/or in line with the other subculture or
subcultures as well as those distinct to them. Some levels of homogeneity were found
within subcultures, such as that found in the confirmed relationship between student and
cooperation orientation across all subcultures. There were also found to be areas of
ambiguity where misperceptions occur. Thus, the multi-perspective approach seems to
apply well in this study, although as the thesis indicates, organisational subcultures have
a more complex nature than simply being categorised as purely heterogeneous (Martin,
2002).
The research has indicated that subcultures have a dual nature: in terms of having
pivotal and peripheral values in relation to the organisation and in terms of whether it
has the same pivotal values as another subculture. In this way, two subcultures may be
seen in terms of the extent to which their pivotal and peripheral values enhance one
another as well as the organisation. Thus, the subcultures are not differentiated entirely
and may in fact reinforce one another. Boisnier and Chatman (2002) refer to the valuereinforcing of subcultures only from the point of view that counter cultures strengthen
dominant cultures through questioning values and thereby, strengthening a commitment
to values through resistance and provoking a value reinforcing response. Hopkins et al.
(2005) refers to subcultures reinforcing behaviours within each one, but not the
reinforcement of values across subcultures. Such reinforcement of values by subcultures
may be seen in the larger society as in the Harley-Davidson consumption culture.
Schouten and McAlexander (1993) found a number of diverse subcultures with distinct
boundaries and regular interaction, differing peripheral values and yet the pivotal value
of being a Harley-Davidson owner was held by all subcultures and enhanced a common
consumption behaviour of buying Harley-Davidsons and their associated accessories as
well as an extraordinary brand identification.
The third research question concerned the impact of subcultures upon market
orientation. The research revealed that all subcultures have the strongest relationship
between cooperation orientation and student orientation, regardless of culture type, with
a strong positive relationship (ranging between 0.686 and 0.821) and with 100%
significance. An explanation of this finding may be considered in a practical example. If
a student comes to an employee seeking help or expressing dissatisfaction, cooperation
is required not only with colleagues within the same department but with
administration, management, and other departments who also teach courses to the same
student. Another possible explanation is that through the top-down communication
12
characteristic of higher education institutions, the hierarchy, which is the means by
which the desired orientation filters down to lower tiers of employees, has
communicated the importance of combining dimensions of market orientation in such a
way that when focus is increased on one dimension, focus is also increased upon
another. For example, in order to decrease student dissatisfaction with courses covering
the same material, teachers from different departments are required to meet and discuss
course plans and feedback. Although there have been no studies into this aspect of the
strength of relationship between elements of market-orientation for subcultures in this
higher education, this combined effect may be useful in management decisions on
which element of market orientation should be a focus for development in the future: a
focus on one of these two elements will in turn impact the other positively.
Alternatively, a focus on the competitive orientation may be seen as a means of
improving the element which has the weakest link of the three in the subcultures.
Further research in this area may be required to investigate this interplay between the
three orientations of market orientation in higher education.
The research has also shed some light upon the meaning of market orientation in higher
education. The findings indicate the one aspect of market orientation which sets HEIs
apart from many other organisations: the external and internal focus. Lings (1999)
suggested a model for both an internal and external focus of market orientation in the
private sector. However, this model referred to a balanced orientation of an external
market orientation with employee orientations and internal marketing. In the model used
in this study, market orientation has an internal focus with the cooperation orientation
and an external focus with competition orientation. Conversely, the student orientation
seemed to be a grey area prior to this research – it was not clear whether the student as a
customer is an external factor or the student, who resides in the organisation on a daily
basis and affects many areas of operations, should be considered an internal factor.
After all, the student culture is directly affected by the teaching staff and vice versa,
with lecturers spending tending to interact more with students than with colleagues. The
finding that the clan subculture type has a greater internal focus, and yet also a high
perception of student orientation may indicate that students are perceived as part of an
internal focus. Furthermore, the model indicates that cooperation is an internally
focussed orientation. The implications of this finding are that a market-orientation
becomes more about an internal focus than external focus for the organisation as two
out of three market orientation elements have an internal focus. However, if a balance is
to be achieved between internal and external focus as recommended by Lings (1999),
then it may be that too high an internal focus may in turn weaken the external focus as
market orientation is too heavily oriented towards internal issues. This interpretation
may account for the low competition orientation despite a concern for the institution
rankings, the publishing race, evaluations and accreditations.
The research has also highlighted another aspect of market orientation in higher
education in the organisation. The findings indicated that different subculture types have
a focus on one particular element from the three dimensions of market orientation
(student, competition and cooperation orientations). The clan subcultures have a
dominant perception of the cooperation orientation and the hierarchical subcultures a
dominant perception of the student orientation. Although perception does not
13
necessarily indicate a value on the part of the subcultures, these distinct differences in
perception reinforce the culture type of each subculture and this can be seen in the
following figure:
Figure 2: The contributions of subcultures to market-orientation
Market orientation in higher education
Student orientation
Hierarchy
subcultures
Competition orientation
Market
subculture
Cooperation orientation
Clan
subcultures
Although the market subculture in this case was not the highest in competition
orientation, the external focus is the determining aspect of this subculture and there
appears to be an argument in favour of multiculturalism i.e. an acceptance of the
existence of subcultures, as each subculture has a different dominant perception of
market orientation and when they are all combined, cover all elements of a market
orientation in higher education.
Thus, despite arguments in favour of the alignment of subcultures to the organisation,
from a market-orientation perspective, multiculturalism seems to allow the potential for
heterogeneous subcultures to exhibit their strengths in one particular element of marketorientation. It may even occur that enforcing a single culture type in the organisation
may well lead to a lower overall market orientation, as one single subculture type may
have dominance in only one particular element of market orientation at the expense of
the others. Further research would need to be undertaken on a larger scale to confirm
that by getting rid of one or more subculture types actually reduces the strength of
market orientation overall, as the subculture is required to switch from its preferred
market orientation to the one of the organisation.
3
The significance of the research results
The title of this study was ‘The alignment of organisational subcultures in a postmerger Higher Education Institution in Hungary’ and it seems that the nature of
subcultural alignment of perceptions and values both within the subcultures, across
subcultures and in relation to perceptions of the organisation have been successfully
identified, although the findings relating to the organisation here cannot be generalized
or confirmed for other institutions.
From a theoretical standpoint, gives a new perspective of the work of Martin (2002) and
Schein (1985) concerning the nature of organisational culture in a higher education
institution and the features of subcultures. Martin (2002) saw organisational culture as
integrated, differentiated or fragmented. In this organisation, there was found to be
14
elements of all of these with 5 subcultures exhibiting signs of differentiation from one
another but commonalities as well. Likewise Schein (1985) indicated that subcultures
comprise a combination of pivotal and peripheral values in relation to the organisation.
This study has given another dimension to this concept as subcultures have pivotal and
peripheral values in relation to each other as well. Although further research would need
to be undertaken to confirm that the data can be generalised.
The subcultures were found to have no concrete basis for formation based on those
given in the literature and the organisation’s subcultures seem to transcend traditional
boundaries such as location, department and specialisation. This may be due to the
matrix structure which was implemented after the merger of three colleges. Although no
empirical evidence was found in the literature, the results point to the matrix structure
may not only allow the flow of information and resources between functional areas but
also may result in the unconscious sharing of values.
The subcultures displayed some aspects of homogeneity across the majority of them in
terms of preferred market-orientation of the leadership, preferred culture type of the
organisation and perceived culture type. However, the subcultures rarely had uniform
values and perceptions across all of them. The heterogeneity of subcultures is just one
aspect causing conflict which when combined with cultural incongruence on the part of
the organisation and subcultures as well as misperceptions within subcultures, can result
in one wondering how members cope with the confusion, conflicts and
misunderstandings that arise during the course of daily routines. The findings highlight
the uncertainty and potential impact upon decision making through conflicting values
found in the higher education institution. The evident ensuing conflict and discomfort of
members in such a situation may in itself stimulate change and be the impetus for an
alignment of subcultures – especially as it was found in the literature review that higher
education cultures are characterised as values driven.
The methodology employed in this study uncovered subcultures that had the same
dominant type but were distinguished from each other by the strength of values. In
society this can be seen in cultures where a spin-off subculture is formed, such when a
Harley-Davidson subculture, with an almost fanatical view of buying all things HarleyDavidson emerges from a bikers’ subculture, with an interest in biking (Schouten and
McAlexander, 1993). There is further scope for research into this area and how two
subcultures with common values but to different extents may impact upon the
organisation.
This study provides further insight into understanding the nature of market-orientation
in higher education - a concept that is hard to nail down. Market orientation, with a
combination of student, cooperation and competition orientations, appears primarily
based upon an internal rather than external focus. This was also borne out by the study
as it was found that competitive orientation was not dominant in any of the subcultures,
even the market-type subculture. This may indicate underlying beliefs that gaining a
competitive advantage over other educational institutions is seen as somewhat unethical
from an educational stance or that staff needs time to adjust to concepts such as
“academic capitalism” and seeing HEIs as businesses and cost centres rather than as
15
service providers for the community. In relation to market orientation, it also seems that
the choice of whether to adopt a multiculturalist approach to subcultures or not has the
potential to affect market orientation. Each of the three subculture types had a
corresponding focus in one of the three market orientations. Thus it appears that through
heterogeneous subcultures the combined dimensions of market orientation, result in an
overall increased market orientation, Thus, the findings indicate the need for the
organisation to adopt a multicultural perspective if it wishes to have a strong market
orientation and that alignment of subcultures may potentially result in a decreased
market orientation.
In spite of the rejection of some hypotheses, these data reveal some interesting
observations in regard to academic subcultures, leadership and market-orientation,
which this researcher hopes will serve to provoke fruitful discussion and further
research.
4
Directions for Future Research
When planning the research, it was considered that culture and subcultures were such a
complex issue that it should be handled on a single case bases, although there is
potential for more extensive research in which a number of subcultures are identified in
a number for institutions of higher education and correlations are found for all the
subcultures identified, especially concerning whether one subculture may impact upon
another and to what extent. However, any attempt to correlate a range of subcultures
across a range of HEIs, may overlook interrelationships specific to each organisation.
On the other hand, a higher number of subcultures gives a larger sample size, which in
turn may allow for generalizations for subcultures in higher education.
The findings that the dimensions of market orientation in this study have particular
relationships with each other in the organisation could be examined on a wider scale to
confirm that there is a relationship between student orientation and cooperation
orientation in subcultures in higher education as opposed to other institutions in the
public sector or private education institutions. Furthermore, innovation is an aspect that
has been considered in some part, but there is a need for further research into innovation
and what it means to staff in institutions concerned with different courses and research
areas, such as comparing innovation in a language faculty, a science faculty and a
business faculty.
A longitudinal study of the subcultures found in the organisation would serve as a
means of uncovering the dynamic nature of these subcultures and whether the
correlations and relationships found endure or transform in the face of changes in
Hungarian higher education. A further study using the same questionnaire is being
planned for the autumn semester 2014, and, subject to approval, may provide further
insight into the dynamic nature of subcultures in the organisation. In relation to further
examination of the organisation, qualitative research was undertaken in 2013 in the
form of group interviews, but there is further scope to uncover through qualitative
methods further characteristics of these subcultures and their interrelationships and
develop the profile of these subcultures further still.
16
Despite arguments made earlier against aligning subcultures, there are cases where a
monolithic culture is preferred and conformity and unity are central to the organisation’s
operations. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996; 14) see the need for “fit between strategy,
structure, skills and culture to reflect changing markets and technology”, which is in
turn similar to the McKinsey 7S model concerned with the alignment of elements to
improve performance. However, in an organisation with subcultures these models
become more complex. The organisational culture needs to be dissected and examined
subculture by subculture as to how they relate to the strategy of the organisation. Based
upon the findings and methodology used, the following model is put forward:
Figure 3: An approach to aligning subcultures in the organisation
Step seven
Identify areas /
subcultures requiring
alignment
Step one
Identify
subcultures
Step six
Identify areas of commonality
with the organisation’s pivotal
values
Step two
Identify culture types and
perceptions
Step five
Assess homogeneity
within subculture for
6 dimensions
Step three
Identify misperceptions
Step four
Identify
common
characteristics
It can be seen that this is a continuous process as it is assumed that cultures and
subcultures are dynamic in the organisation and that through interaction, problem
solving, exposure to internal changes (such as changes in leadership) and external
changes (such as government funding and market pressures) the subculture’s values
may be in a state of flux and as values change and employees come and go, the
boundaries may also change. This continuous process ensures an awareness of the
composition of organisational culture and the ‘subcultural gap’ between the desired
direction and values of leadership in relation to the actual values held by staff. This
model could be applied in practice as a means of conducting a ‘subculture’ audit prior to
17
the commencement of any change processes or when looking to implement a change in
the direction of the organisation. It is put forward that further research into finding and
testing a suitable model for alignment of subcultures involving subcultural audits and
measuring of subcultural congruence / distance could be considered.
18
5
References
1. Bailey, T. L., (2011). Organizational Culture's Impact on the Effectiveness of
Research Administration Units: A Multicase Study of Historically Black Doctoral
Degree Granting Institutions. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations.
Paper 902. Available at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/902. (accessed 25th June
2012 )
2. Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In Clark. B. R.
(ed.) The academic profession. Berkeley, University of California Press.
3. Belasen, A., Frank, N. (2008). Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and
personality traits, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Volume 29,
Issue 2, pages 127 – 143.
4. Berrio, A.A. (2003). An Organizational Culture Assessment Using the Competing
Values Framework: A Profile of Ohio State University Extension, Journal of
Extension, Volume 41, Number 2
5. Billups F.D: (2011). Collegiate Administrator Perceptions of Organizational
Culture: An Analysis of Metaphors. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting
of the North-eastern Educational Research Association, October 19-21, 2011,
Rocky Hill, CT.
6. Boisnier, A., Chatman, J.A. (2002). The Role of Subcultures in Agile
Organizations. In Leading and Managing People in Dynamic Organizations, R.S.
Peterson and E. Mannix (Eds.), chapter 6, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
7. Cameron, K.S., Quinn R.E. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Based on the competing values framework, MA: Addison-Wesley
8. Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., Ewing, M.T., (1998). Do universities that are more
market-orientated perform better? The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, volume 11, number 1, pages 55-70.
9. Cervera, A., Molla, A. and Sanchez, M. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of
market orientation in public organisations, European Journal of Marketing,
Volume 35 Numbers 11/12, pages 1259-88.
10. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A Framework for Linking
Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organisations. Academy of Management
Review, volume 25, number 4, pages 850-863.
11. Dill, D.D. (1982). The management of academic culture: notes on the
management of meaning and social integration, Higher Education, issue 11,
pages 303–320.
12. Ebeid, A., Gadelrab, H. (2009). Identifying dominant organisational culture types
in public Egyptian Universities and their relationships to a set of developmental
indicators, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 7, Issue 4, pages
23-32.
13. Flaherty, J., Moises G.F., Pathak, D., Mitchell, T., Wintrob, R., Richman, J.A.,
Birz, S. (1988). Developing Instruments for Cross-Cultural Psychiatric Research.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, volume 176, number 5, pages 257263
19
14. Fralinger, B., Olson, V., Pinto-Zipp, G., DiCorcia, M. (2010). Organizational
Culture at the University Level: A Follow-Up Study Using the OCAI Instrument.
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings, Dublin, Ireland.
15. Gaál Z., Szabó L., Obermayer-Kovács N., Kovács Z., Csepregi, A. (2010). Clan,
adhocracy, market or hierarchy? Which is the best for knowledge sharing in
Hungary?
ECIC.
Retrieved
from
http://www.academicconferences.org/ecic/ecic2010 /ecic10-proceedings.htm (accessed 21st February
2012).
16. Gibbs, P. (2001), Higher education as a market: a problem or a solution?, Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pages 85-94.
17. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M., Peltola, U. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented
university. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and
Educational Planning, volume 52, number 2, pages 251-281.
18. Hemsley-Brown, J.V., Oplatka, I. (2010). Market Orientation in Universities: A
comparative study of two national higher education systems, International
Journal of Educational Management, volume 24, issue 3, pages 204-220.
19. Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical
approach. Journal of Management Studies, volume 35, issue 1, pages 1-12
20. Hopkins, W. E., Hopkins, S. A., Mallette, P., (2005). Aligning Organizational
Subcultures for Competitive Advantage. New York: Basic Books.
21. Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Langberg, K. (2007): Academic autonomy in a rapidly
changing higher education framework - Academia on the Procrustean bed?
European Education: Issues and Studies, volume 39 number 4, Winter 20072008.
22. Kuh, G., Whitt, E. (1988). The invisible tapestry. Culture in American Colleges
and Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education, Report No.1, 1988.
23. Lin, C., Ha, L. (2009). Subcultures and use of communication information
technology in higher education institutions. The Journal of Higher Education,
Volume 80, Number 5, pages 564-590.
24. Lings, Ian (1999). Balancing internal and external market orientations. Journal of
Marketing Management, 15( 4). pp. 239-263.
25. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain, Thousand Oaks,
CA : Sage, pages 94-110.
26. Mitra, S.K. (2009). Why Universities Are Adopting Market Oriented
Management Practices? Asian Social Science, Volume 5, Number 3.
27. Narver J.C., Slater S. F., (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. Journal of Marketing, volume 54, number 10, pages 20-35.
28. Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F., (1994). Market Orientation, Customer Value, and
Superior Performance. Business Horizons, issue 37, pages 22-28.
29. Nahavandi, A., Malekzadeh, A. R. (1993). Organizational culture in the
management of mergers. Quorum books.
30. Parker, B. W. (2011). Positivity and Positive Reinforcement in Organizational
Culture at Nazarene Higher Education Institutions. Olivet Nazarene University
Ed.D. Dissertations. Paper 29. Available at: http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu
(accessed 20th May 2012).
20
31. Quinn, R. E. and J. Rohrbaugh. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria:
Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management
Science, 29(3), 363-377.
32. Rivera-Camino, J., Molero Ayala, V. (2010). Market orientation at universities:
Construct and exploratory validation. Innovar [online]. 2010, volume 20, number
36, pages 125-138. Available from: http://www.scielo.org (accessed 13th
September 2011).
33. Rodriguez, D. (1995). The examination of faculty subcultures within institutions
of higher education, PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology. Available
at: http://hdl.handle.net/1853/30936 (accessed 17th July 2010).
34. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. (1993). Market impact of a consumption
subculture: the Harley-Davidson mystique, European Advances in Consumer
Research, Volume 1, eds. W. Fred Van Raaij and Gary J. Bamossy, pages: 389393.
36. Shirbagi, N. (2007). Egyetemi oktatók szervezeti elkötelezettsége, és annak
kapcsolata a szervezeti kultúrával, magyar pedagógia (Hungarian pedagogy)
issue 107, number 3, pages 185–203. (Title in English: Faculty members'
organizational commitment and its relationship with organizational culture).
37. Tan, C.Y., Vathanophas, V. (2003). Identifying Subcultures and their Perceptions
towards Knowledge Management Systems, 7th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia. Available at:
http://www.pacis-net.org/file/2003/papers/is-strategy/133.pdf (accessed 11th June
2012).
38. Temesi, J. (2012). Felsőoktatás-finanszírozás: Nemzetközi tendenciák és a hazai
helyzet, Corvinus University of Budapest, Aula Kiadó Kft. (English: Financing
higher education: international trends and the local situation).
39. Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. Journal of Higher Education, volume 59, number 1, pages 2–21.
40. Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace, Ithaca, NY: ILR
Press.
41. Trice, H.M., Beyer, J. M. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
42. Tushman, M., O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review; Summer
1996; 38, 4;
43. Van de Ven, A., Ferry, D. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New
York: Wiley-Interscience.
21
6
Publications
International Journals
1. Chandler, N. (2014). A critical review of market-orientation in the organisational culture
of post-merger organisations. Journal of Management and Marketing, Special issue:
Challenges for the knowledge Society, Volume 8, pages 111-124. ISSN: 1842-0206
2. Chandler, N. (2013). Braced for turbulence: understanding and managing resistance to
change in the higher education sector. Management, 3 (5): 243-251 ISSN: 2162-9374, eISSN: 2162-8416 2013
3. Chandler, N. (2011). Understanding complexity: A multi-perspective model of
organisational culture in higher education institutions. Practice and Theory in Systems of
Education, the Pedagogical Journal of the Association of Educational Sciences, Volume 6,
Number 1 2011, pp. 1-10. HU ISSN 1788-2591 (Online), HU ISSN 1788-2583 (Print).
4. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2011). The Effect of Market-Oriented Subcultures on PostMerger Higher Education Institutions. US-China Education Review, volume 1, number 5,
pages 666-681. ISSN 2161-623X
5. Chandler, N. (2011). Organisational culture and the entrepreneurial school: a case study.
International journal of research in commerce and management, volume 2, issue 12, pages
17-24, ISSN 0976-2183
6. Chandler, N. (2010). Reasons and forms of organizational resistance to change in the
higher education sector. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education (P.T.S.E.), the
Pedagogical Journal of the Association of Educational Sciences, Volume 5, Number 1
2010, pp. 87-104. HU ISSN 1788-2591 (Online), HU ISSN 1788-2583 (Print).
National Journals
1.
Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2014). Hajsza közben – Egy magyar felsőoktatási intézmény
piacorientációjának kultúra alapú elemzési kísérlete, Vezetéstudomány (accepted and to be
published in 2014, first quarter)
Proceedings
1. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2014). Face the change / change the face: Subcultural
responses to institutional change in Hungarian higher education, EGOS conference,
Rotterdam, July 2014
2. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2014). Let’s work together: interfunctional collaboration and
market-orientation in a Hungarian Business School, BAM conference, Belfast, September
2014
22
3. Chandler, N. (2013). A critical review of market-orientation in the organisational culture of
post-merger organisations. International Conference on Business Excellence (ICBE) 2013,
17-19 October 2013, Brasov, Romania.
4. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2013). Behind the wheel: pressures towards oligarchy or
democracy in higher education? “Corporate Governance in Central and Eastern Europe”,
11th Chemnitz East Forum, 11-13 September 2013, Chemnitz, Germany.
5. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2013). A kötéltánc maga az élet, avagy a piac-orientáltság
értelmezése a gazdasági felsőoktatásban. In: Szabó Lajos (szerk.) Mérföldkövek és
kihívások a menedzsmentben: A menedzsmentkonferencia 2013 konferencia
tanulmánykötete, Balatonfüred, Hungary, 26-28 August 2013, Veszprém: Pannon
Egyetem, pp. 83-10, ISBN:9786155044892.
6. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2013). The whole of the moon: transforming from a unitarist
to a pluralist perspective. “Common Disciplines that Separate Us: Local Contexts in
Global Networks”, 4th Annual Conference of the European Decision Sciences Institute
(EDSI), June 16-19 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
7. Chandler, N. (2012). Conformity or Creativity? Empirical findings of subcultures in
higher education. Challenges and Promises in International Business: Best Practices in
Intercultural Communication, Finance, Strategy, Logistics and Network Design, 17
September 2012, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.
8. Chandler, N. (2012). Homogeneity, heterogeneity or fragmentation? A case study
exploring the composition of organisational culture in a post-merger higher education
institution in Hungary. Management Research Revisited: Prospects for Theory and
Practice, British Academy of Management conference, 11-13 September 2012, Cardiff,
UK. ISBN 978-0-9549608-5-8.
9. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2012). Ivory Towers or Business Units? An Attempt to
Depict the Market-Orientation of a Business School. Management Re-imagined:
International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM) conference,
26-29 June 2012, Limerick, Ireland. ISBN 978-1-907300-04-2.
10. Chandler, N. (2011). Questioning assumptions: assessing organisational cultures in
Higher Education Institutions. Plenary presentation at the 4th International Conference for
Theory and Practice in Education: Society and Education, 9-11 June 2011, Budapest,
Hungary.
11. Chandler, N. (2010). Needles in a haystack? Mapping organisational subcultures. Merre
tovább? – Gazdaság és társadalom, realitás és esély, 10. Tudományos konferenciasorozat
Magyar Tudomány Ünnepe, 2010. November 4-5, Budapest, Hungary. ISSN 1558-8401.
12. Chandler, N., Heidrich B. (2010). Mapping uncharted territory: identifying organisational
subcultures and their orientations in a post-merger higher educational institution.
Conference for 20 Years of the Free Market Economy in Middle Europe and Slovakia,
National and Regional Economics VIII, 13-15 October 2010, Herľany, Slovakia. ISBN
978-80-553-0517-2.
23
13. Chandler, N. (2010). A matter of perspective: HR practice and organisational culture.
Poster Presentation. ‘Scientific Challenges of the 21st Century’. 6th International
conference for young researchers. 4-6 October, 2010, Gödöllő, Hungary. ISBN 978-963269-193-0.
14. Heidrich, B., Chandler, N. (2010). Marriages made in hell? The effect of market-oriented
subcultures on post-merger higher education institutions. Proceedings of the 3rd EMUNI
conference on higher education and research: Entrepreneurial learning and the role of
universities, 23-25 September 2010, Portorož, Slovenia. ISBN 978-961-6805-03-2.
15. Chandler, N. (2010) Change in Higher Education: Understanding Individual and
Organizational Resistance. ‘Intercultural Communication, Multicultural Education’. 3rd
International Conference for Theory and Practice in Education, 27-29 May, 2010,
Békéscsaba, Hungary.
16. Chandler, N. (2010). Subcultures: The Implications for Organisations. Association of
Hungarian PhD and DLA Students, Spring Wind (Tavaszi Szél) Conference, 25–27 March
2010, Pécs, Hungary. ISBN 978-615-5001-05-5.
17. Chandler, N. (2009). Mergers: Organisational culture in Higher Education Institutions.
Gazdaság és társadalom: tudomány és innovatív Környezet. 3 November 2009, Sopron,
Hungary. ISBN: 978-963-9871-30-4.
Scientific activities
1. Member of the international editorial board for the Pedagogical Journal of the Association
of Educational Sciences (HU ISSN 1788-2583).
2. Reviewer for the Journal Management (p-ISSN: 2162-9374, e-ISSN: 2162-8416).
3. Reviewer for the Journal of Human Resource Management Research (p-ISSN: 2169-9607,
e-ISSN: 2169-9666).
24