Том 133 № 12 (2024): ДИСКУССИЯ ЖУРНАЛ НАУЧНЫХ ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ ПО ЭКОНОМИКЕ
link to magazine
Corporate Culture Health in a company on the Russian market
Author 1: STEFFEN REIMER
DBA Student at Eurasian Management and Administration School (EMAS Business School),
Moscow, Russia
Author 2: ANDREY ALEXANDROVICH KOLYADA, DBA
Rector at Eurasian Management and Administration School (EMAS Business School),
Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Keywords: Corporate culture, corporate culture health, strategic management, Corporate Culture Health Heptahedron, Cameron and Quinn Andrey Kolyada
This article explores the application of Andrey Kolyada concept of Corporate Culture Health in modern strategic management, business modeling along with its impact on management decision-making. A brief description of the definition of corporate culture in the science is followed by an overview of the Corporate Culture Health (CCH) model developed by Andrey Kolyada. The aim of these articles is to elaborate the optimal implementation of the model in practice, test its suitability for actual application and assess the results obtained. The test was performed in real conditions at Ferromont Russia with annual turnover of 160 million rubles. Sixty-three employees took part in the survey. First, the distribution of the questionnaires to the employees was analyzed, as there are several ways to conduct this survey. This was followed by an analysis of the completed questionnaires and an analysis of the evaluation design.
Introduction
“Whenever a group has enough shared experience, a culture begins to form. Cultures can be found at the level of small teams, families, and work groups. Cultures can be found at every level of the hierarchy. Culture exists at the level of the entire organization when there is enough shared history. Therefore, understanding the corporate or organizational culture will be an essential part of understanding the organization.” [2] The most important aspect of a thriving organization is its people. However, not every employee can be as good as their manager. Thus, managers represent the real driving force of a good Corporate Culture. They are responsible for maintaining and shaping the directions of a company development. Andrey Kolyada perspective on the topic is as follows: “employees see themselves fulfilling their tasks and, therefore, they have a reflective influence on Corporate Culture. That requires a positive cooperative behavior from employees who are committed to the company.” [1] Staff members are driven to execute their daily tasks with the utmost dedication. This suggests that the domineering Corporate Culture is widely accepted by everyone within the organization, consequently, workers can discern advantages for themselves and for the whole company. In the event of employees demonstrating a lack of absolute commitment to the company, this has a detrimental effect on the company. This has a direct impact on key performance indicators, including productivity, sickness rates, and staff turnover. This suggests that the company management is unable to effectively communicate the Corporate Culture values to its employees. This dynamic is a basic component of the method developed by Andrey Kolyada which helps analyze the health of the Corporate Culture based on target questions. In conjunction with this approach, a company management may have a ‘leverage effect’ that can be used to steer the Corporate Culture in the desired direction.
Thus, all activities and all rules that impact the company are in the hands of the top management. The EMAS training materials provide a clear indication that a corporate culture is initially created by a group of people working together.
The guiding directions of the corporate culture need to come from the top management. The adoption of a group-related subordinate culture facilitates the establishment of a top-down corporate culture that encompasses all areas of the company. Andrey Kolyada provides and illustration of this phenomenon in his presentation on Corporate Culture as follows: “Corporate Culture – is how employees regard the execution of their duties and what they tell each other about their company and management, meanwhile, they are sure that no one controls their behavior.” [3] Top management influences its subordinates through its own behavior. Middle management, right down to the employees, interprets the interaction of top management and initiates the decision-making process. Regardless of who takes the initiative, a social culture will develop at a group level, which can also be replaced by a Corporate Culture developed from above. A top-down Corporate Culture also unites the company objectives and creates a link between the individual and the vision of the company owners. This means that every employee has a clear picture of the company future, shares this and plays a key role in its realization.
The History of Corporate Culture
To approach the topic of Corporate Culture and corporate health according to EMAS by Andrey Kolyada, it is important to get a holistic overview of the history of corporate culture. We will discuss the most important works which formed the basis of Andrey Kolyada work. Corporate Culture and its research date back to the beginning of the last century. In the review of the book from William H. Whyte “The Organization Man” [4] by Nikki Springer, she analyzes the book as follows:
“The Organization Man was targeted primarily at the general public matter than academics, through the book come to be a core text in many history and business programs. Although typically considered a business book, Whyte’s work is as much an ethnographical study of a particular culture as it is an early entry into management literature.” [5] In the early 1960s, Douglas McGregor presented his X-Y theory. [6]. “Theory X is based on the assumption that most people are lazy, hate their work, and can only be made to perform with the right mix of carrot and stick; that they are also basically immature, need to be directed, and cannot take responsibility themselves. Theory Y, on the other hand, is based on the opposite assumption, that people have a psychological need to work, that they want to achieve and take responsibility — and that they are basically adult beings.” [7] These contrasting employee characteristics very often lead to incorrect management behavior and make it necessary for managers to apply different assessment criteria when evaluating employees. By knowing this theory, it is possible to adapt leadership behavior and thus improve performance depending on the person and their individual behavior. The fact that person X is considered unwilling to work puts them under pressure from the outset. This leads to the person reacting with a high degree of passivity and listlessness. This, in turn, leads to increased pressure from the line manager, who threatens to impose sanctions if instructions are not followed. The next high point in theory was triggered by Edgar and Peter Schein's model of organizational culture, which was introduced in the 1980s. In his book “Organizational Culture: A Dynamic Model” [8], the definition of corporate culture is as follows: “Organizational Culture; A Formal Definition Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions which a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”[8] In other words, Schein assumes that organizations do not create a working environment in one day, but that it is a lengthy process in which all employees of the company accept changes depending on their position in the company and adapt their external environment to the corporate culture. This interaction, which is sometimes not consciously recognized, benefits from the experience of each individual employee. If the corporate culture is already in place, every new employee will try to adapt to this culture. Schein's model assumes that every organization has a unique culture. This culture can be divided into three levels: Artifacts and Creations, Espoused Values, Basic Assumptions. “Organizational culture can be analyzed at several diverse levels, starting with the visible artifacts — the constructed environment of the organization, its architecture, technology, office layout, manner of dress, visible or audible behavior patterns, public documents such as charters, employee orientation materials, etc. This level of analysis is "tricky" because the data are easy to obtain but hard to interpret”. [8] Espoused values: at this level are the explicit strategies, goals, and philosophies of an organization. These include the officially communicated values and behavioral norms, which are often recorded in the form of company guidelines, mission statements or in employee handbooks. Juni Khyat defined this in his treatise as: “Espoused values are the organization's stated values and rules of behavior. It is how the members represent the organization both in terms of their behavior and the shared values. Their interpersonal behaviors and their behaviors with outsiders speak volumes. The mission, vision, goals, values need to be displayed nicely in framed posters in strategic locations in organizations.” [9] These are essential in decisions about the organizational culture. The attitude of each individual employee and their willingness to act have a major influence on the culture of each individual organization. “The third level is assumptions which are shared basic assumptions. These are deeply embedded, taken-for-granted behaviors which are usually unconscious, but constitute the deep essence of culture. These assumptions are well integrated in the work culture, so that they are easily recognized in actions of the employees and management. The inner aspects of human nature constitute the third level of organization culture. The inner values of individual employees can make or break an organization.” [9] It should not go unmentioned that Max Scheler (German philosopher), had already described an ethics of values on which subsequent scientists based their work. His two-volume work “Formalism in ethics and the material ethics of values” [10], published in 1913 and 1916, was highly influential. In it Scheler attempted to replace Kant's ethics of duty with an ethics based on an emotional sense of value (value ethics). Scheler's basic idea is that the values of existence (such as love, infinity, truth) and authentic experience are not accessible to the intellect. Scheler therefore also rejects an image of man that reduces man to intellect and reason. Instead, he propagates an understanding of man as an emotional being that is essentially characterized by the will to live, magical-mystical elements and the subconscious. For Max Scheler, value qualities are “…it emerges that there are genuine and true qualities of value which represent a separate area of objects which have their relationships and connections and which, as qualities of value, can be higher or lower. But if this is the case, then an order and hierarchy can prevail between them which is entirely independent of the existence of a world of goods in which they appear, as well as of the movement and change of this world of goods in history and is <a priori> for its experience.” [10] This idea is extremely useful for determining the hierarchy of values. He placed permanent spiritual values above temporary physical values, placed spiritual goods above material goods, placed the satisfaction of artistic meditation above material satisfaction, placed the meaning of life above the emotional value of pleasure and displeasure, and placed the spiritual value of perception, beauty, and justice above the value of attitude to life. This is an excellent idea that can give contemporary people with misunderstood values the right sense of value. This value ethic is essential to the corporate culture, as it describes the elementary building blocks that ultimately lead to a corporate culture. The ethics and its composition for a single individual is the basis from which the group ethics and consequently the corporate culture develops. Scheler's findings show that purely rational behavior in a company contradicts the nature of human beings, and that the emotional area of the human ego must not be neglected. This should and must be the basis of interaction in a company between all employees. In the last step of the historical review deals with the four types of corporate culture according to Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn. According to Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron, there are four main types of organizational culture: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy. “…Cameron and Quinn (2011) defined the Competing Values Framework (CVF) as a two-dimensional area that reflects distinct culture types. First the flexibility and discretion versus the stability and control axis indicate if the organization focuses on stability or change. The second dimension concerns whether the organization is externally or internally oriented. Based on these two dimensions, the CFV distinguishes four basic cultural types: Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market. These types can be identified by using the survey of Cameron and Quinn. The outcome of the survey will be the kind of culture we have in the organization. The survey consists of six questions to which there are different answers. The weighting is done by assigning percentages. All questions together make up 100%. This means, for example, that if you give 20% for the first question, you still have 80% for the other questions. This survey of all employees should take place at least twice a year, as each evaluation of this survey also causes a reaction from the management and thus a change in the corporate culture. The categorization aims to understand in which model the company is present now and which model is the best for the organization and the portfolio of the company. With the help of the developed Competing Values Framework is it possible to rethink and improve many behaviors and decisions. Even the change of the corporate culture modelб as reflected in the company, can be modified with this tool, be it at the top management level or middle management, by weighing these competing value assumptions against each other. Thus, it is an extremely useful tool, without losing sight of the fact that corporate culture is more than these four competing values. However, this tool is not suitable to quickly recognize necessary changes. For this issue Andrey Kolyada developed the Corporate Culture Health Heptahedron. His book “Next level: Strategic management of a New Era. How to build an effective business model and develop an effective strategy for your company's growth” [3] His survey will be a part of the next chapter.
Corporate Culture Health Heptahedron
The book “Next level: Strategic Management of a New Era” [3] describes the theoretical approach to strategic management of corporate culture and is used to determine how healthy the organization is in terms of its culture. This tool, due to its simplicity and its ability to quickly recognize necessary changes, is a valuable aid for any management in any company. It consists of a questionnaire with seven separate paragraphs, hence the name “hepta” from the Greek for seven. Overall, the paragraphs include seventy questions. This survey must be completed anonymously by each employee of some company. The questions relate directly to this company. An employee can rate each question with points from 1 to 10. It does not matter how often the employee awards the top score of 10 per question. The questions are described in detail in the practical section. The answers of each employee give a total result for the respective question in a company. By scoring the individual answers, it is possible to recognize the vulnerable points in the company, and it is possible to react directly to them. For example, the first paragraph is dedicated to the company objectives and one of the ten questions reads as ‘Did your management tell you the main objective of the company Ferromont?’ If, for example, the lowest points are awarded here, it is important to question whether the company objective has been adequately announced and what can be changed to achieve better scores in future surveys. Analyzing the received results, the top or middle management will be able to communicate the objective better. This way, it is possible to work through each paragraph and question and draw direct conclusions for the company strategic and operational activities. Andrey Kolyada assumes that a company always has its own corporate culture. This is susceptible to influence. This assumption is predicated on the premise that a corporate culture can be categorized as either ‘sick’ or ‘healthy’. The ideal corporate culture is the one that is ‘perfect’ in its health, and this is achieved situation when all seven angles (paragraphs) of the heptahedron attain ten points. [3] In real life, this is unlikely. However, the company must constantly strive to reach perfection and measure progress using a special questionnaire (staff survey). A greater proximity of results to angles indicates a more productive and healthy corporate culture. The focus in the model of Corporate Culture Health Heptahedron relates only to the health condition, therefore, it can be used independently without the tool by Cameron and Quinn.
Procedure of the surveys
There are many ways to conduct this or other surveys. One option would be to digitize the questionnaire and conduct the survey over the intranet. The disadvantage of this type of survey is that employees will be afraid their anonymity would not be guaranteed. Another disadvantage would be that programming the survey would be too expensive and time-consuming. The advantage is that all answers are recorded automatically and evaluated. Another option would be to centralize the survey, i.e., all employees gather for a meeting, fill out and submit the questionnaire at the same time. This is the most unrealistic option, as many companies work in different shifts, thus, only part of the workforce is on site. Finally, there is the option of top-down management, where the questionnaires are given from top management down to the lower management level of foremen and supervisors in charge of conducting the survey in their area. This variant was also used at Ferromont. The questionnaires are given to each employee in paper form and filled out and returned to the next higher position as a flow of information from bottom to top. These questionnaires are evaluated at the top management level.
Evaluation of the CCH developed by Andrey Kolyada
Figure 1. Evaluation lists
As already mentioned, this tool and a relevant questionnaire were developed by Andrey Kolyada have already been presented to the professional world. The questionnaire, with the paragraphs and corresponding questions on the company objectives, employee interest in the company, free expression of opinions by employees in the company, cohesion of employees among each other, continuous development of the company, prospects of the company for the employees, as well as promotion of personal initiative, were given in paper form to 63 employees. Special attention was taken to ensure that all forms were filled in anonymously and without third party assistance. Figure 2, on the question of the company objectives, shows that questions 6–10 did not receive a high score. This is because employees have little insight into the workings of middle and senior management, or the interaction between these individual areas of the organization is faulty. For example, question 6 refers to the democratic way of working during the middle and senior management meetings. The resulting conclusion is to increase need for communication between management and employees. The insights gained from the partial results and corresponding questions can be put into an action list to improve findings and related changes in the company in the next survey. As already mentioned, the evaluation is done graphically in a heptahedron. The graph is an average of total given scores of all employees. To count this graph, it is helpful to use a list, or an Excel sheet to count the results directly. Figure 1 shows the evaluation lists. This type of list facilitates developing tasks for the action list and counting the results. The results are used to visualize the company unique business points on the market. It also makes sense to compare the previous survey with the new one.
Figure 2. Questionnaire evaluation according to Andrey Kolyada [3]
![Figure 2. Questionnaire evaluation according to Andrey Kolyada [3]](/sites/default/files/styles/12_of_12_max_xl/public/fields/paragraph.image.field_image_image/2025-04/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA2.jpg?itok=LuZ4_TrL)
With evaluation lists it is possible to design the end results – the graph of the Heptahedron of Corporate Culture Health. In Figure 5 are two graphs consisting of a blue line which is the optimum of corporate culture health, which can never be fully achieved, and the real calculated value from all the company employees and the real situation, the red line. All questionnaires were checked for anonymity, the results were listed separately and analyzed. It is important to consider the overall result, but also partial answers, which is crucial for the development of a strategy to increase the health of the corporate culture. It can be concluded that questions with a low score indicate the problems within the organization.
Outcome of the survey
As stated above, the task for the action list creates from the delta of the given scores and the optimum of ten points, as well in the questions under each paragraph. The aim is to get closer to the optimum with each survey, as shown in Figure 4. To structure the tasks, it is necessary to develop an action plan. The action plan shows all paragraph separately and contains the responsible person, start and end date of the activity, actual score and target score, budget, as well as the schedule in the calendar, as shown in Figure 3. This Excel table can be used to control the activities, and it forms the basis for the next action plan after the next survey.
Conclusion
Figure 3. Action plan
© 2009-2024.