Organization Culture as a Derivative of Collective Responsibility

Organization Culture: An Analysis of Two Articles

Organizational Culture: An Analysis of Two articles

A collective organization approach is one that seeks to empower individual capacity to handle organizational issues at an individual level. In this case, the spirit of independence is vital since it responds to organizational challenges, and thus, maintaining spillovers cooperatively. Based on this approach, it is appropriate to assess the scholarly approach designated to empower organizational culture. Scholarly, such a culture ideally seeks to minimize derivative concerns that are resulted by an improperly dispensed leadership ideology. This analysis will seek to examine the validity of two articles and their interrelationship in terms of concepts. The analysis will prove that an appropriate organization culture is one that fosters a spirit of collectivism.

Summary of the two articles

Stohr et al. (2012) approach towards organizational culture is structurally developed towards affiliating all members in a given organization setting. As seen, it is appropriate to understand that organization culture is a complex application of working formulas, norms, symbols, systems and visions. As a form of emphasis, Stohr et al. (2012) applied two focal paradigms, which are instrumental in dividing the human world into two central theories. Indeed, the theories being championed by the team seeks to communicate on the greater role of the top management in illuminating to the required management setting. The instrument applied by the team seeks to analyze the influence of a coherent organizational theory in public administration, psychology and the larger business setting. The team is inspired so that all the employees in the organization are motivated (Stohr et al., 2012, p. 322). Therefore, there is a need to engage all employees in the progressing process.

Finkelstein (2011) seconds the notion of management leading service orientation. Similarly, Stohr et al. (202) are heavily in the opinion for proper organization culture where the citizenship is decisive in providing a seconding commitment towards improving staff service orientation. They argue that employee activities exceed the formal job requirements and will naturally contribute to the executive functioning of the organization. They not only power the concept of individualism in the organization, but also champion the application of collectivism as a seconding theory in relation to organizational citizenship.

Relationship of the two articles

Much of the debate in the two articles seeks to examine the aggregate role of managers in championing a decisive collectivism and individual responsibility in a working environment. In Stohr et al. (2012), it is vital to understand that prison facility employees are obliged to a wider organizational commitment. Therefore, it is important for the members to management techniques, which will naturally seek to respond to challenges created in the development of a given management approach. In contrast, Finkelstein (2011) is behind a collectivism theory that seeks to empower the concepts of interdependence. Naturally, correction facilities like a prison stretch beyond the concept secluding long doers from the society to a more decisive counseling facility. Therefore, it is necessary to apply Finkelstein approach to answering experiments being conducted by Stohr et al., (2012), an individualized driven management approach. With time, a collectivism theory will empower prisons guard to a wider role of guiding inmates towards a desirable lifestyle free from crime.