Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Assessing an Organization Culture Readiness in Free Trade Era

(A Case Study of Denison Organization Survey in an Indonesian University

Primajati Candra Hastuti*


Obvious description of organizational culture provides picture of current organization condition.

Assessing current organization condition is important design organization transformation. In the free
trade era, the university organization is challenged for unpredictable impact of the era. University is
forced to involve in free trade era by reform organization in business fashioned without losing it role
as culture-conserving and culture-creating. Denison organizational culture survey is a dimensional
approach culture instrument that explores the nature and extent to which any cultural dimension is
present in an organization. Descriptive analysis provides the current condition of organization, while
univarate analysis is taken to assess influence of control variable. Case study is also conducted to
provide description of internal situation within organization


Globalization signs with borderless interaction among world societies that change in
various aspect of life particularly in business and economic. This condition dramatically
increases country interdependency as keen as its competition. Free trade era is a product of
globalization that refers to borderless geographical trade activities. The main considerable
issue of free trade era is readiness capacity to participate in that era. Participant of the era is a
society or groups those formal manifests as organization. Degree of readiness in free trade era
determines organization survival, growth and its insolvency. Readiness refers to ability to
adapt in the environments that closely defines as interaction between organization aspects and
its environment. Furthermore, interaction between environmental variables, organizational
practices, and the consequences of those practices is defined as organizational culture
(Bumstead & Boyce, 2005).
Organizational culture is a core organization life that forms as a pattern of shared
basic assumptions that is learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation
and internal integration (Schein E. H., 2009). It has worked well enough to consider valid
and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems. Some authors address organizational culture as adaptability aspect
for organization improvement and organization lucrative change (Fey & Denison, 2003;
Bates & Khasawneh, 2005; Trivellas, Reklitis, & Konstantopoulos, 2007; Shera, 2008).
Therefore, in the addressing organization readiness in free trade era involve organizational
culture, as crucial aspect is important. Empirical studies of organizational culture have been
carried out various assessment instruments (Tobias, Scott, Bower, Whalley, McNally, &
Mannion, 2009), and across various industries (eg, Bumstead and Boyce, 2005). Various
studies give guidance on the exploration of organizational culture and provide dimensions
that describe it. Organizational culture is a complex phenomena to understand because its
invisible appearances. Assessing organizational culture through numerous provided
instruments should be selected on the basis of its purpose and setting. Denison organizational
survey is organizational culture instrument that established based on integration internal
* Doctoral Program student of Management Science Brawijaya University
Presented paper in Doctoral Journey of Management, Universitas Indonesia, August, 4th 2010
organization factors to external organization environment. The instrument is considerable
punctual in portraying organizational current condition which is flexible or stable.
Educational education particularly Universities is characterized apparent with
inflexible and resistant to change organization (Friedman, Friedman, & Pollack, 2005). In
free trade era, universities have to learn to run their organizations in more business-like.
Inflexibility and the failure to respond quickly decisively to environmental change can be
dangerous. Assessing Universities organization culture will provide academician description
of their organization in its readiness to respond environmental change. This paper is
subjected to provide an organization picture to adapt in the free trade environment.

Universities organization in free trade era context

Free trade era refers to internalization trade process, which is signed with flow of
product and production factors (e.g. labor and capital) across geographical boundaries.
Internalization flow of product and production factors increase competitive among countries.
The developed countries race to market their products and expand their production factor
over the world while developing countries attempt to provide competitive advantageous
Recently, Indonesia emphasizes its competitiveness factors on low cost of production
factors such cheap labor force and abundant supply of natural resources. Technology
advancement and limit availability unrenewable resources have changed the competitiveness
factors. Moreover, demand on natural conservation, health, security, and human right leads
industrialization practice into more sociable and more responsible. The competitiveness
factor turns into technology, knowledge and expertise (Tambunan, 2004). As the result, to
sustain and increase Indonesian competitive position, fulfillment of the competitiveness
factor is undeniable.
Free trade era brings its challenges on neo-liberals that emphasizes on private
ownership and distributive effect of prosperity exploration. This condition leads to
commercialization and comodification of global system economic, including water, food,
health, arts, sciences, and technology (UGM, 2004). Universities as a part of culture-
conserving and culture-creating institution in the civilizing process and humanizing are
encouraged into market based preference. Universities in free trade era are challenged into
three main changes: first, the implication of technology development and its application and
its consequences. Universities have to perceive society development that driven by market
preference criteria. Information and technology development will available as long as it’s
benefited. Second, globalization of information technology will be resulted citizen and
economic grow onto corporate capitalism that manifest into oligopoly and monopolistic
corporation. Third, as result of the two main challenges, class inequality will control the
society. The class will determine who and what information must be received.
All three main challenges must drive university to build “sense of crisis” and “sense
of emergency” that an action and a policy should be taken to prevent degradation of
university ability to create an education and conservation institute and culture creation. In the
other side, Universities as a provider national labor are challenged not only on their
graduate’s ability to compete with international workforce but also responsible to create
national expertise. Two statements above give insight that universities must able to adapt

with the market preference context without losing its role and obligation as culture-
conserving and culture-creating institution. Then, the main challenge of universities as
institution is preparing its resources to aside the role and obligation in the free market
characteristic. There are great changes ahead for higher education, but changing the culture of
an organization is a daunting task (Friedman, Friedman, & Pollack, 2005). Culture is
considered as the main organization factors to estimate organization readiness on change and

Denison Organizational Culture Survey

Despite intuitive appeal of organizational culture instrument and widespread use by
researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, there is little agreement as to how culture
should be conceptualized (Tobias, Scott, Bower, Whalley, McNally, & Mannion, 2009).
Culture is conceptualized the range from observable phenomena such as customs, rituals
(Schein E. H., 2004), structures (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) to abstract idea such as teamwork,
formal, command and control (Schein E. H., 2009). Instruments are developed into two main
approaches those are dimensional approach and typological approach (Tobias, Scott, Bower,
Whalley, McNally, & Mannion, 2009). Dimensional approach explores predefine set culture
dimension of organization, while typological approach depends on organization dominant
Denison organizational culture survey is dimensional approach instrument who
developed by Denison and his colleagues. The instrument is developed on organizational
culture model that explore the importance of adaptability and the fit between an organization
and its environment (Fey & Denison, 2003). This model (figure 1) represents the four traits.
Each quadrant includes three indices of managerial practice that are linked to each of the
traits. The traits and the indices are presented in terms of two underlying dimensions,
flexibility vs. stability on the horizontal axis and an external vs. internal focus on the vertical
axis (Denison & Neale, 1999).
Horizontal split divides the profile between an external focus (top half) and an
internal focus (bottom half). Involvement and consistency address the internal dynamics of an
organization while adaptability and mission, in contrast, take as relationship between the
organization and the external environment. The vertical split address distinction between a
flexible organization (left half) and a stable organization (right half). Involvement and
adaptability emphasize an organization's capacity for flexibility and change. Opposite that,
consistency and mission emphasize the organization’s capacity for stability and direction.
Involvement refers organization as human builder capability, ownership, and
responsibility. This trait is manifested through (1) empowerment-Individuals have the
authority, initiative, and ability to manage their own work. This creates a sense of ownership
and responsibility toward the organization. (2) Team orientation is a value on working
cooperatively toward common goals for which all employees feel mutually accountable. The
organization relies on team effort to get work done. (3) Capability development-organization
commitment to continually invest in the development of employees' skills in order to stay
competitive and meet ongoing business needs.
Consistency is a source of stability and internal integration resulting from a common
mindset. It consists of values and systems that are the basis of a strong culture. Consistency

creates a "strong" culture based on a shared system of beliefs, values, and symbols that are
widely understood by members of an organization (Mobley, Wang, & Fang, Summer 2005).
Consistency is manifested into (1) coordination and integration-rely on different functions
and units of the organization are able to work together well to achieve common goals without
interfered by organization boundaries. (2) Agreement is an ability to reach agreement in
critical issues that includes both the underlying level of agreement and the ability to reconcile
differences when they occur. (3) Core values rely on share a set of values that create a sense
of identity and a clear set of expectations.
Adaptability emphasizes translation demand of the business environment into action.
This aspect integrates a system of norms and beliefs that support the organization's capacity
to receive, interpret, and translate signals from its environment into internal behavioral
changes that increase its chances for survival, growth, and development. The adaptability
aspect impact on first, the ability to perceive and respond to the external environment;
second, the ability to respond to internal customers, regardless of level, department, or
function; and third, the capacity to restructure and re-institutionalize a set of behaviors and
processes that allow the organization to adapt (Denison & Neale, 1999). Adaptability
manifests into creating change, customer focus, and organizational learning. Creating change
imply the organization to create adaptive ways to meet changing needs. It is able to read the
business environment, quickly react to current trends, and anticipate future changes.
Customer focus highlights the organization to understand and reacts to their customer, and
anticipates their future needs. It reflects the degree to which the organization is driven by a
concern to satisfy their customer. Organizational learning underlines on how the organization
receives, translates, and interprets signals from the environment into opportunities for
encouraging innovation, gaining knowledge and developing capabilities.
A mission trait provides purpose and meaning by defining a social role and external
goals for the organization. It provides a clear direction and goals that serve to define an
appropriate decision action for the organization and its members. A sense of mission allows
an organization to shape current behavior by envisioning a desired future state. It also align
internalization and identification an organization's mission that contributes to both short and
long-term commitment to the organization. Mission manifests into (1) strategic direction and
intent and intent and intent deal with clear strategic intentions convey the organization's
purpose and make it clear how everyone can contribute, and “make their mark“ in the
industry. (2) Goals and objectives deal with clear set of goals and objectives can be linked to
the mission, vision, and strategy, and provide everyone with a clear direction in their work.
(3) Vision is a shared view of a desire future state. It embodies core values and captures the
hearts and minds of the organization's people, while providing guidance and direction (Fey &
Denison, 2003).
Applying this framework guides organization into effectiveness criteria. Previous
studies (Fey & Denison, 2003; Mobley, Wang, & Fang, Summer 2005) proved organizational
culture model focuses on the contradictions involved in simultaneously achieving internal
integration and external adaptation. At the core of this model, underlying beliefs and
assumption as the deeper level of organizational culture are typically difficult to measure and
harder to generalize (Schein E. H., 2009). However, practically this model provides

observable and presentation underlying beliefs and assumption into the four key of cultural
traits, involvement, adaptability, mission, and consistency.
One of the uniqueness of this model is that it focuses on two paradoxes that each
company is constantly seeking to balance (Mobley, Wang, & Fang, Summer 2005). For
example, consistency versus adaptability: companies that are market-focused may encounter
problems with internal integration but those too well integrated may be over-controlled and
lacks adequate flexibility to adjust to the environment. The other is top-down vision (mission)
versus bottom-up (involvement): organizations with too much emphasis on general corporate
mission may frequently ignore the issue of employee empowerment and buying but
organizations with strong participation may have a hard time in establishing direction.
Effective organizations are those that are able to resolve these contradictions without relying
on simple trade-offs (Fey & Denison, 2003).

Figure 1. Denison Organization Culture


(Denison & Neale, Denison

Organizational Culture
Survey:Facilitator Guide, 1999)
Research Method
The research questions are guiding this study concern on applying the models to
describe organization readiness of university in free trade era. The first question addresses
organizational culture according to the four cultural traits through descriptive research.
Second question support to emphasize the first question answer by conducting case study.
This study involves both research approaches quantitative and qualitative that data is
characterized supplemental and mutually interdependent. The collection and analysis
quantitative data followed by collection and analysis qualitative data is referring sequential
explanatory design (Tashakkori & Teddue, 2003). The purpose of the sequential explanatory
design is typically to use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the
findings of a primarily quantitative study.

The study is conducted in university institution as an object study. Quantitative study
involved survey on Denison culture survey to member of the organization. The questionnaire
items are adapted from Denison organization Culture survey that worked by Fey and Denison
(2003). The four traits in the model each have three indexes that are the mean of three five-
point Likert scale questions ranging from 1-5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The
questionnaires distribute within simple random sampling that provides least bias and offer the
most generalizability (Sekaran, 2003). Qualitative approach considers the judgmental
sampling that the choice of respondents who are most advantageously placed or in the best
position to provide information required (Veal, 2005). About four informants are selected
according to their best organization position and their understanding on the culture context.
Reliability test is conducted to test for consistency and stability. Cronbach’s alpha is
reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set positively correlated to one
another (Sekaran, 2003). Cross sectional studies distribute eighty questionnaires. The respond
rate is 43, 75 percent data that are sufficient to be analyzed.
Descriptive analysis is conducted to obtain organizational cultural traits. While
univariate analysis involving differences test (t-test results) is represent influence of gender
bias.Anova (analysis of variance) provide influence of current position and educational
background In line with quantitative approach, case study method addresses reflective
opinion of organization. This approach aims

The goodness of data is justified according reliability test. The result for reliability
test is .809 that considered good (Sekaran, 2003). Respondents are characterized gender
differences, position, and educational background. Position within organization are divided
into four position, there are lecture refers to teaching staff; functional staff refers to
employees who authorize certain department, administration staff refers to administrative
employees including receptionist, secretary, librarian receptionist; and supporting staff refers
to employee who support the functional staff.
54.3 percent respondents are male; this percentage does not refer to describe total
employees gender. About 52.4 percent respondents are supporting staff and lectures are least
respondents. This indicates that questionnaire responds may high in supporting staff. Most of
respondents obtain bachelor degree followed by master degree. This indicates the
organization is contained with educated resources.
Table1. Respondents Characteristics frequencies
Frequency Percent
Gender differences
Male 19 54.3
Female 16 45.7
Current position
Lecture 2 5.7
Functional staff 11 31.4
Administration staff 4 11.4
Supporting staff 18 51.4
Educational background
Undergraduate/ diploma 1 2.9
Bachelor 20 57.1
Master degree 13 37.1
Doctoral degree 1 2.9 6
Total 35 100.00
Source, primary data
Table2. Descriptive Value of Denison Cultural Traits
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic

Involvement 35 1.29 5.00 3.7573 .14243 .84263

Empowerment 35 1.00 5.00 4.0286 .17626 1.04278
Team orientation 35 1.00 5.00 3.9143 .15541 .91944
Capability development 35 1.00 5.00 3.7429 .17558 1.03875
Consistency 35 1.76 5.00 3.4876 .12646 .74817
Core value 35 1.00 5.00 3.8000 .17775 1.05161
agreement 35 1.00 5.00 3.3714 .17434 1.03144
Coordination and internal integration 35 2.00 5.00 3.9714 .14486 .85700
Adaptability 35 1.80 5.00 3.3112 .14073 .83257
Creating change 35 1.00 5.00 3.9429 .15847 .93755
Customer focus 35 1.00 5.00 3.0571 .19637 1.16171
Organizational learning 35 2.00 5.00 3.6571 .14168 .83817
Mission 35 1.20 5.00 3.6327 .14985 .88654
Strategic direction and intent 35 1.00 5.00 3.6857 .19129 1.13167
Goals objectives 35 2.00 5.00 3.7143 .15103 .89349
Vision 35 1.00 5.00 3.8000 .16296 .96406
Valid N (listwise) 35

Source, primary data

Table 2 provides descriptive value of cultural traits. Involvement (3.75) trait is the
highest mean than mission (3.63) consistency (3.48) and adaptability (3.31). Within
involvement traits, empowerment (4.0) is the highest index mean, in the consistency traits
coordination and integration (4.0) is the highest. Creating change has 3.9 index mean, higher
than other manifest factors of adaptability. In mission trait, vision has highest index mean
t-test (appendix 1) indicates genders are not influence difference perception of the
cultural traits (sig.> 0.05) except involvement trait (t=-.116;sig=016<.05) and strategic
direction and intent and intent (t=-1.598;sig=.038<.05) . Involvement and strategic direction
and intent and intent are varying according to gender differences. ANOVA test result
addresses variation of current position and educational background. ANOVA test by current
position presents that current position does not imply variance of cultural traits (sig>.05).
Coordination and internal integration (F=2.905;sig=.050<.05); organization learning
(F=4.228;sig=.013<.05) and vision (F=.804;sig=.501<.05) are varying according to
educational background (appendix 3). Other cultural traits and its manifestation factors do not

vary according to educational background. Case study result will be analyzed in the
following section

Descriptive result of Independent test presents involvement (3.75) has greater index
mean than mission (3.63) consistency (3.48) and adaptability (3.31). Involvement represents
the university rely on informal, voluntary, and implied control systems, rather than formal,
explicit, bureaucratic control systems. The university organization provide internal
environment that encouraged employees active participation on the decision making. Within
involvement traits, empowerment has higher index rather than capability that indicates people
in the university organization are making decisions that they may not be capable of making.
The condition may be potential disaster waiting to happen, occurring when people
confuse empowerment with abdication or think that by saying the magic word, people wake
up capable of making business decisions regardless of experience, education, knowledge, or
ability (Denison & Neale, 1999). It is contradicting with educational demographic that most
of respondent obtain high educational background (bachelor degree). High educational
background of university organization members may be assumed sufficiency to generate right
decision for organization. However, educational degree does not enough equipped university
organization members to make right decision. Experience, knowledge, and ability are key
factor of taken right decision. Experience, knowledge, and ability are manifestation of
organizational intellectual assets (Sumita, 2008). Those intellectual assets are form of a
university organization members learning in facing business challenges.
Mean index of mission (3.63) trait addresses a clear direction and goals that serve to
define an appropriate course of action for the university organization and its members.
Direction and goals are clearly communicated to university organization members. With high
empowerment, members are encouraged to engage on goals achievement. Unfortunately,
within mission trait, vision is higher than Goals and Objectives indicates that the university
organization may have a difficult time executing or operationalizing its mission. At the helm
may be brilliant visionaries who have a difficult time translating dreams into reality.
Difficulties on executing the organization result may be indicated by lack decision making
capability of organization members particularly person in charge (authorized leaders) in those
A consistency trait is lower mean index (3.48) than involvement and mission traits.
Low consistency mean index addresses low internal integration coordination and control. The
organization has low committed employees, no key central values, a unclear method of doing
business, no tendency to promote from within, and a blurred set of do's and don'ts (Denison
& Neale, 1999). Low consistency is considerable weak culture because a shared system of
beliefs, values and symbols that are not widely understood by members of university
organization. Agreement (3.37) has the lowest index than core value and coordination (3.80)
and internal integration traits (3.97) indicate that university organization have a good
intention but become less bond when conflict or differing opinions arise. In the arising
conflict or differing opinion, everyone talking at once, people ignoring the input of others, or
withdrawal are frequently observed behaviors (Mobley, Wang, & Fang, Summer 2005).

Adaptability (3.31) presents organization norms and beliefs that support
organization’s capacity to respond external challenges has lowest mean index among other
traits. The low adaptability trait indicates, first, organization is considered less able to
perceive and respond external environment; second, less able to respond internal customers,
regardless of level, department or function and third, less capacity to restructure and re-
institutionalize a set of behaviors and processes that allow the organization to adapt.
High level anxiety among employee may exist due to high mean index of creating
change (3.94) than customer focus (3.05) and organizational learning (3.65), and vision
(3.80) and strategic direction and intent (3.7), are on the low side. This condition indicates a
"change for change sake" mentality, and the changes made are often not perceived by
employees as having any particular direction or purpose.
Within free trade era, when market force is the driven factor, the crucial failure may
appear when organization address changed environment due to free trade era. University
organization will have difficulties in addressing change to adapt the new environment.
Commercialization and commodifications are undeniable in free trade era that forces many
organizations to engage including university organization. Crucial issue may appear when
university in the state of weak culture. It leads to lack of organization self identity as culture-
conserving and culture-creating institution in the civilizing process and humanizing. The
organization suffers for losing its role as educational institution.
University organization members may lead to anxiety and frustration on blurred
organization condition. Organization members experience of integration internal organization
(norms and value) to external condition (environment) drives into organization climate
discussion. Climate, portrays organizational environments as being rooted in the
organization's value system, but tends to present these social environments in relatively static
terms, describing them in terms of a fixed (and broadly applicable) set of dimensions
(Denison, 1996).
t-test by gender differences resulted there is no variation between male and female
respondent except on involvement trait(t=-.116;sig=016<.05) and strategic direction and
intents (t=-1.598;sig=.038<.05). Different perceive on involvements and strategic direction
and intent traits between male and female may indicates greater variance exist. However,
supporting data for gender difference on cultural traits is not supported in this study that lead
to limitation of variation explanation.
Difference test according current position and educational background is provided by
ANOVA test. ANOVA test on current position results that current position does not
influence variation of cultural traits. Educational background implies on different variation on
coordination and internal integration (F=2.905;sig=.050<.05); organization learning
(F=4.228;sig=.013<.05) and vision (F=.804;sig=.501<.05) reflects data is greater spread
within group variance. The variation according to educational background on coordination
and internal integration may imply that members of university organization provide various
opinions in best coordination and internal integration.
Variation on organizational learning represents ability of organizational members to
learn within turbulence environment through integration of organization norms and value
(Schein E. H., 2009). Different educational background will influence organizational
learning. Two implications may appear. First, higher educational background may accelerate

organization learning process; second, higher educational background may trigger resistance
on learning process. Vision is perceived varying by educational background. Educational
background influences variation of vision among university organization members. This may
imply that higher education background drive the vision is clearly communicated but difficult
to implement.

Case study
Case study is conducted to obtain reflective organization culture condition by
university organization members. The case study began with face to face interviews to
informants that considerable in the best position and understanding the context. The four
informants are coming from different position within organization including (lecture,
functional, administrative, and supporting staff). The informants provide information of
organization culture implementation through reflection of the norms and value of
Norms and value of organization underlies behavior of organization member. The
culture of organization is still struggling to be implemented since this organization newly
exists. Different value and characters university organization members that influence their
behavior still become challenge for internal integration (support low agreement mean index).
Although formal value and norms are socialized through formal organization forum,
organization culture does not manifest in the day to day task. The integration of norms and
value that underlies member’s behavior tends growing difference than institutionalized norm
and value. Organization member admit its norm and values are more effective to cope with
daily activity and relation harmonization.
In the organizational life, people tend competing against each other rather than
fighting the real competition. The heavy internal focus, the organization tends to focus on
internal competition, rather than external competition. The competition is developed to drive
the quality of members work. Employees are encouraged to give the best ability in
organization development. However, the negative competition impact has not being
Leader of this organization have strong characters and often influence in the taken
decision. Taken decision often involve of leader personal desire and ambition that less
consider organization resources capability. The strong force of leader asides with high
potential employee capability may address low organizational buying in. Low organizational
buying is being realized by the informant due to employee resignation frequency. Employee
resignation frequency tends high (data of employee resignation cannot be provided) in this
university organization. Although various possibilities appear due to reason of employee
resignation, This condition proves that the organization failed to engage organization vision
and employee vision.

Conclusion and limitation

The study captures current condition of university organization. Involvement is the
highest trait among cultural traits. Although the highest involvement means the positive side,
high empowerment that does not aside with lower capability index lead into waiting potential

disaster. The statement implies that university organization members are lack of capability in
executing strategy and create right decision.
Adaptability is the lowest traits of university organization culture implies lack of
organization respond on external environment, respond to internal customer and less capacity
to restructure and re-institutionalize a set of behaviors and processes that allow the
organization to adapt. This condition is not benefited the organization because they will
unable to exist. In the context of free trade era, which emphasizes running organization like
business fashioned, lack ability to adapt and create right decision is a potential factor for
organization failure. The organization will unable to exist and compete within turbulence
Denison organizational culture survey provides the importance insight of current
organization condition. The survey is practitioner approach that simple to apply but capture
reality or organization. Aside with descriptive study, face to face interview provides
reflective opinion of captured cultural traits. Indirectly, qualitative study gives cause and
effect linkages of the organization condition.
This study emphasize on simple analysis and considers less provide linkage on other
variable such as existing environment, organization performance. Control variable such as
gender differences and educational background is unexpected influence variation of cultural
traits. Due to lack linkage to other variable, this study is limited to explain the variation.
During discussion of this study several result test can be answered due to lack of provided
data such as insight of difference culture perceive by gender. Further research may examine
influence of gender more specific.


Bates, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational Learning Culture, Learning Transfer
Climate and Perceived Innovation in Jordanian Organizations. International Journal
of Training and Development 9:2 , 96-108.

Bumstead, A., & Boyce, T. E. (2005). Exploring the Effects of Cultural Variables in the
Implementation of Behavior-Based Safety in Two Organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management Vol. 24(4) , 43-63.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational

Culture:Based on the Competing Values Framework (Revised Edition). San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is The Difference Between Organizational Culture and

Organizational Climate? A Native's POint of View on Decade of war paradigm.
Academy of Management Review Vo.21.No.3 , 619-654.

Denison, D. R., & Neale, W. S. (1999). Denison Organizational Culture Survey:Facilitator

Guide. Washington: Denison Consulting, LLC.

Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organization Culture and Effectiveness: Can American
Theory be Applied in Rusia. Organization Science Vol.14, No 6 , 686-706.

Friedman, H. H., Friedman, L. W., & Pollack, S. (2005, September 29). Transforming a
University from a Teaching Organization. Review of Business , pp. 31-35.

Mobley, W. H., Wang, L., & Fang, K. (Summer 2005). Organizational Culture:Measuring
and developing it in your organization. The Link , 11-20.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership 3rd ed. San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. All.

Schein, E. H. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business A Skill Building Approach 4th ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

Shera, W. (2008). Changing Organizational Culture to Achieve Exellence in Research. Social

Work Research Vol 32, No 4 , 275-280.

Sumita, T. (2008). Intellectual Assets Bsed Management for Innovation. Lesson from
experiences in Japan. Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol. 9 No. 2 , 206-227.

Tambunan, T. (2004). Pengusaha Kadin Brebes di Dalam Era Globalisasi: Tantangan dan
Ancaman. Temu Usaha Kadin Brebes, (pp. 1-26). Solo.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddue, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Method in Social and Behavioral
Research. California: Sage Publications,Inc.

Tobias, J., Scott, T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009).
Instruments for Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review of the Literature. Public
Administration Review , 1087-1096.

Trivellas, P., Reklitis, P., & Konstantopoulos, N. (2007). A Dynamic Simulation Model of
Organizational Culture and Business Strategy Effects on Performance. Computational
Methods in Science and Engineering (pp. 1074-1077). American Institute of Physics .

UGM, R. (2004). Revitalisasi Jati Diri UGM menghadapi perubahan global . Dies Natalis
2004 Universitas Gajahmada, (pp. 1-47). Yogyakarta .

Veal, A. J. (2005). Business Research Methods A Managerial Approach 2bd ed. New South
Wales: Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd.

Appendix 1. Independent sample test result
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Involvement Equal variances
6.470 .016 -.123 33 .903 -.03563 .29015 -.62594 .55467
Equal variances
-.116 20.855 .909 -.03563 .30649 -.67328 .60201
not assumed
Empowerment Equal variances
.053 .820 -.823 33 .416 -.29276 .35551 -1.01606 .43053
Equal variances
-.816 30.527 .421 -.29276 .35894 -1.02529 .43976
not assumed
Team orientation Equal variances
2.353 .135 -.872 33 .389 -.27303 .31308 -.91000 .36394
Equal variances
-.830 22.005 .415 -.27303 .32889 -.95509 .40904
not assumed
Capability Equal variances
.812 .374 .941 33 .354 .33224 .35305 -.38605 1.05053
Development assumed
Equal variances
.924 28.874 .363 .33224 .35950 -.40316 1.06764
not assumed
Consistency Equal variances
.514 .479 -.162 33 .872 -.04179 .25758 -.56584 .48226
Equal variances
-.159 28.591 .875 -.04179 .26264 -.57928 .49570
not assumed
Core value Equal variances
2.818 .103 .575 33 .569 .20724 .36039 -.52598 .94045
Equal variances
.563 28.229 .578 .20724 .36809 -.54649 .96096
not assumed
Agreement Equal variances
.005 .947 .306 33 .762 .10855 .35474 -.61317 .83027
Equal variances
.304 31.275 .763 .10855 .35656 -.61840 .83550
not assumed
Coordination and Equal variances
.016 .901 -1.824 33 .077 -.51316 .28132 -1.08551 .05919
integration assumed
Equal variances
-1.843 32.887 .074 -.51316 .27841 -1.07966 .05335
not assumed
Adaptability Equal variances
.045 .833 -.539 33 .593 -.15393 .28549 -.73477 .42691

Equal variances
-.540 32.147 .593 -.15393 .28513 -.73461 .42675
not assumed
Creating change Equal variances
.602 .443 -1.439 33 .160 -.45066 .31323 -1.08793 .18661
Equal variances
-1.442 32.249 .159 -.45066 .31254 -1.08709 .18578
not assumed
Customer focus Equal variances
.034 .854 -.313 33 .756 -.12500 .39952 -.93782 .68782
Equal variances
-.314 32.443 .755 -.12500 .39789 -.93504 .68504
not assumed
Organizational Equal variances
.741 .396 .607 33 .548 .17434 .28708 -.40972 .75840
learning assumed
Equal variances
.602 30.637 .552 .17434 .28966 -.41671 .76539
not assumed
Mission Equal variances
2.588 .117 -1.710 33 .097 -.50034 .29265 -1.09574 .09506
Equal variances
-1.759 32.248 .088 -.50034 .28445 -1.07957 .07889
not assumed
Strategic Equal variances
4.664 .038 -1.538 33 .134 -.57895 .37651 -1.34495 .18706
direction and assumed
intent and intent Equal variances
-1.598 30.676 .120 -.57895 .36226 -1.31810 .16020
not assumed
Goals and Equal variances
.265 .610 -.976 33 .336 -.29605 .30338 -.91329 .32118
objectives assumed
Equal variances
-.977 32.187 .336 -.29605 .30289 -.91287 .32077
not assumed
Vision Equal variances
.306 .584 -1.506 33 .142 -.48355 .32119 -1.13701 .16991
Equal variances
-1.529 33.000 .136 -.48355 .31631 -1.12709 .15998
not assumed
Source, primary data
Appendix 2. ANOVA table by current position
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Involvement Between Groups .011 1 .011 .015 .903

Within Groups 24.130 33 .731

Total 24.141 34

Empowerment Between Groups .744 1 .744 .678 .416

Within Groups 36.227 33 1.098

Total 36.971 34

Team orientation Between Groups .647 1 .647 .760 .389

Within Groups 28.095 33 .851

Total 28.743 34

Capability development Between Groups .959 1 .959 .886 .354

Within Groups 35.727 33 1.083

Total 36.686 34

Consistency Between Groups .015 1 .015 .026 .872

Within Groups 19.017 33 .576

Total 19.032 34

Core value Between Groups .373 1 .373 .331 .569

Within Groups 37.227 33 1.128

Total 37.600 34

Agreement Between Groups .102 1 .102 .094 .762

Within Groups 36.069 33 1.093

Total 36.171 34

Coordination and internal Between Groups 2.287 1 2.287 3.327 .077

integration Within Groups 22.684 33 .687

Total 24.971 34

Adaptability Between Groups .206 1 .206 .291 .593

Within Groups 23.362 33 .708

Total 23.568 34

Creating change Between Groups 1.764 1 1.764 2.070 .160

Within Groups 28.122 33 .852

Total 29.886 34

Customer focus Between Groups .136 1 .136 .098 .756

Within Groups 45.750 33 1.386

Total 45.886 34

Organizational learning Between Groups .264 1 .264 .369 .548

Within Groups 23.622 33 .716

Total 23.886 34

Mission Between Groups 2.174 1 2.174 2.923 .097

Within Groups 24.548 33 .744

Total 26.722 34

Strategic direction and Between Groups 2.911 1 2.911 2.364 .134

intent and intent Within Groups 40.632 33 1.231

Total 43.543 34

Goals and objectives Between Groups .761 1 .761 .952 .336

Within Groups 26.382 33 .799

Total 27.143 34

Vision Between Groups 2.031 1 2.031 2.267 .142

Within Groups 29.569 33 .896

Total 31.600 34
Source, primary data
Appendix 3. ANOVA Table by educational background

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Involvement Between Groups 1.817 3 .606 .841 .482

Within Groups 22.324 31 .720

Total 24.141 34

Empowerment Between Groups 2.048 3 .683 .606 .616

Within Groups 34.923 31 1.127

Total 36.971 34
Team orientation Between Groups 2.020 3 .673 .781 .514

Within Groups 26.723 31 .862

Total 28.743 34
Capability development Between Groups 1.716 3 .572 .507 .680

Within Groups 34.969 31 1.128

Total 36.686 34
Consistency Between Groups 2.115 3 .705 1.292 .295

Within Groups 16.917 31 .546

Total 19.032 34
Core value Between Groups 1.973 3 .658 .572 .638

Within Groups 35.627 31 1.149

Total 37.600 34
Agreement Between Groups 1.191 3 .397 .352 .788

Within Groups 34.981 31 1.128

Total 36.171 34

Coordination and Between Groups 5.479 3 1.826 2.905 .050

internal integration Within Groups 19.492 31 .629

Total 24.971 34

Adaptability Between Groups 1.307 3 .436 .607 .616

Within Groups 22.261 31 .718

Total 23.568 34

Creating change Between Groups 3.828 3 1.276 1.518 .229

Within Groups 26.058 31 .841

Total 29.886 34

Customer focus Between Groups .413 3 .138 .094 .963

Within Groups 45.473 31 1.467

Total 45.886 34

Organizational learning Between Groups 6.936 3 2.312 4.228 .013

Within Groups 16.950 31 .547

Total 23.886 34

Mission Between Groups 1.294 3 .431 .526 .668

Within Groups 25.429 31 .820

Total 26.722 34

Strategic direction and Between Groups 3.035 3 1.012 .774 .517

intent and intent Within Groups 40.508 31 1.307

Total 43.543 34

Goals and objectives Between Groups 2.143 3 .714 .886 .459

Within Groups 25.000 31 .806

Total 27.143 34

Vision Between Groups 2.281 3 .760 .804 .501

Within Groups 29.319 31 .946

Total 31.600 34

Source, primary data