Specification of a model for the study of management culture

Especificación de un modelo para el estudio de la cultura de gestión

The aim of this work is to establish a model to explain the incidence of workplace culture on organizational management. From a review of the theoretical, conceptual and empirical frameworks logical paths for management to predict demands that exceed the resources and optimization are encouraged settled.

Broadly speaking human capital are paradigms from which knowledge networks acquire a training, assimilative, technological, detached, motivational and social mobility sense.

That is the rational choice instrument of human capital, is confined to a pervasive educational system where the individual generates its own opportunities and develops both skills and knowledge in terms of usefulness and profit of its decisions (Acar and Acar, 2014).

In this sense, knowledge networks burst human capital to give it legitimacy and transparency to discuss and agree on decisions that will benefit a group or community, academic, scientific and technological.

Competition and cooperation that involves the formation of human capital determines knowledge networks, since it is these that outline strategies balance between demands and resources. Once established innovations, knowledge networks determine the symbols, meanings and relevant ways for collaboration and resolution of conflicts within the groups. Innovations such as intelligent systems and foster technological change organizations must adjust their entrepreneurship skills of new knowledge (Saansongu and Ngutor, 2012).

The opportunities arising from the dynamics of innovative networks will shape the development of skills and knowledge. It is a process of value creation of individual, group collaborative and innovative organization.

Although human capital underlines the importance of individual decisions regarding innovation groups, the management culture goes beyond this synergy because it represents a balance between the values of the company and the leader's ability.

Therefore, the specification of a model for the study of the culture of knowledge management through collaborative networks explain such complexity.

The organizational culture is understood as a process of dependency relationships between external variables regarding internal variables to the organization. This is a scheme in which technology, structure, values, norms and needs determine the motivational variables -affiliation, power, utility - and these in turn affect the resulting variables -leadership, management, entrepreneurship, innovation, productivity, satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, accidents, adaptation, innovation, reputation-.

In this process, the theory argues that workplace culture are the values and standards consistent determinants of variables through mediating and moderating variables (Sales, Quintero and Velázquez, 2016).

The moderating variables are those that reduce or increase the negative or positive effect of external variables to the organization. This is the case of knowledge while lower values when autocratic affect the commitment of workers or increase the influence of democratic values when an impact on cooperation between employees (Anicijevic, 2013).

Mediating variables are those that transfer the effects of values and rules on the consequent variables only. This is the case of attitudes and intentions that not only link the norms and values to behaviors, but also give a cultural sense. Ie autocratic behavior by linking with obedience and conformity values are mediated by unilateral attitudes.

Thus, the theory of organizational culture explains scenarios consequent variables from autocratic or democratic values and norms.

The work culture involves indicators correspond with the features of the consequent variables. In this regard, the management culture being indicated by the self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism involves a process of values and autocratic from emerging leadership and thus a specialist in management (Vazquez standards, Barrientos, Quintero and Velázquez, 2016).

In the opposite case, the absence of leadership and management is determined by depersonalization, exhaustion or frustration concerning tasks, objectives and goals unilateral.

Therefore, the theory of labor culture explains the emergence of management only if the norms and values indicate an autocratic process from which decisions and strategies are focused on a specialized management leader (Quintero, Velázquez, Sales and Padilla, 2016).

However, organizational management is a more specific than those explained by the theory of labor culture process. As management is specific, labor culture, values and standards must be more specific in order to be linked with the objectives and goals of management.

Organizational management, unlike the work culture is a specific process, as it involves objectives and definable, measurable and comparable goals. In this sense, organizational management refers to a process of indicators linked to monitoring and systematic evaluation of processes, strategies and behaviors.

Under the organizational management is guided by values and innovative standards, it is a process of systematic and constant change, according to the contingencies of the environment, and therefore contrary to the vertical and unilateral structure of autocratic culture where emerges dependence on a leader (Cruz, Arroyo and Marmolejo, 2016).

However, organizational management resulting from the autocratic culture historically assumed different objectives and goals against innovations and specific changes.

As specified organizational management and intensifies, autocratic culture is reduced to a minimum and gives way to a more participatory culture. Accordingly, organizational management is a competition on proposals and monitoring and evaluation (Hernandez and Valencia, 2016).

It is for these differences between cultures and managements that the organizational management theory explains the advent of an innovation and a change from the interplay between unilateral power - decisions and vertical structures that produce obedience and conformity in the majority and influence -intentions change from innovations minorities.

That is, decision makers are restricted to relationships of power and influence as the objectives and goals are more specific, but if both are not changed from achieving success, then it is an autocratic culture (Robles, Alviter, Ortega, and Martinez, 2016).

Thus, the transformational leadership is associated with variables related to the processes of influence rather than power, as motivation for effectiveness, satisfaction and effort mean traits of joint management between the leader and followers (Mendoza Ramirez and Atriano, 2016). Or, when communication, cohesion and support negatively correlated with wear, depersonalization and dissatisfaction, but positively affect the commitment, then we are witnessing a scenario in which the autocratic culture of majorities interacts with minority participation. The organizational management theory explains the advent of the relationship between power relations -leaderships deciding on the behavior of followers and influence -talents relations and knowledge- generating opportunities.

From both theories, work culture and organizational management, you can specify the logical paths consistent explanatory variables.

A documentary study was conducted in which the findings published from 2015 to 2019 were subtracted from international repositories such as Copernicus, Dialnet, Ebsco, Latindex, Publindex, Redalyc, Scielo and Zenodo corresponding to the work culture (see Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive data

A: Literature that reported significant effects (, 60 to, 90) of the work culture on organizational variables; B: Literature that reported spurious effects (<, 30) of the work culture on organizational variables.

The Inventory of Findings related to the Work Culture of Carreón (2016) was used in order to systematize the review, considering the type of literature (A or B), as well as the record of qualifications of experts on the subject, considering: -1 for negative effects, 0 for null effects, +1 for spurious effects and +3 for significant effects and in relation to its relevance to the state of the art.

The Delphi technique was used to develop the evaluation of the judges in three stages. In the first instance, the qualifications were registered in order to be able to compare them. In the second phase, feedback was managed with the purpose of orienting the consensus of the judges and in the third round the similarities and differences between the criteria of the judges and their qualifications to the results were recorded. The information was processed in the qualitative data analysis package in order to establish non-parametric distribution, contingent relationships, probability proportion structure, possible relationship paths.

Table 2 shows the non-parametric distribution of values corresponding to the qualifications to the judges, as well as the matrix of contingent and pro-rational relationships to observe the thresholds of rejection and acceptance of the relevance of the findings.

Table 2. Descriptive of the inventory

E = Extract; e1,e3,e5 = Literature type A, e2,e4,e6 = Literature type B; M = Mean, S = Standard Deviation, W = Sweetness, K = Kurtosis, A = Asymmetry, X2 = ji squared, df = Degree Freedom, p = significance level; ( ) Odds ratio threshold.

Once the structure of contingent and proportional relationships was established, which suggests the estimation of the proportional relationships goal trajectories, the decision goal tree was elaborated (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Meta decision trajectories

C = Central Category (Laboral Culture), R = Round (R1 = Evaluation, R2 = Feedback, R3 = Consensus). E = Extract (e1, e3, e5 are literature type A; e2, e4, e6 are literature type B). ( ) Odds Ratio Threshold.

The structure of trajectories of relationships between categories, rounds and extracts suggests a global evaluation within the thresholds of acceptance of the relevance of the literature.

Unlike the study on culture and labor management where fatalistic or optimistic scenarios based on correlations between external variables with respect to internal variables to the organization are anticipated, the specification of a model includes variables for their systematic study is possible to infer dependency relations paths.

The model specification is a revision of the dependency relationships established in studies predicting a process, strategy or behavior. It is assumed that the explanatory variables to predict the variables to form a logical system known as nomological network paths.

In this sense, the paths of dependency relationships explain nomological networks established based on a literature review for a period (Garcia, Carreon Hernandez and Salinas, 2016).

However, the specification of a model to rely on a enough studies on a process, strategy or behavior, is preponderant paths have not always been demonstrated by studies.

It is therefore necessary to apply dependency relationships that have been established not logically or empirically, creativity or intuition can apply as feasible relations between the revised variables, or variables not apply conceptualized and weighted by the state of knowledge.

In the case of relations not established in the literature, inferring from studies in which variables were conceptualized and / or weighted in order to account for other processes, strategies or similar or different behaviors it is possible that intended to explain.

Finally, in the case of the variables used in studies of a process, strategy or organizational behavior, it is possible to infer from the correlations between indicators.

The specification of a model is made from 1) include empirical relationships demonstrated by the literature reviewed and 2) propose the variables and relationships are not established by the state of knowledge.

In this regard, studies of culture and labor management have shown that values and norms are external to the relations of power and influence in an organization variable.

However, the norms and values when interacting with the contingencies of the environment, association with processing information available known as beliefs and perceptions (Omotayo and Adenike, 2013).

Thus, external variables or determinants would, values, norms, beliefs and perceptions that explain consequent variables such as; entrepreneurship, innovation, satisfaction, productivity, competitiveness and counter variables such as turnover, absenteeism, dissatisfaction, lack of productivity, compliance or obedience.

However, when the variables determining indicators of general processes that would affect specific variables, they must be mediated or moderated by variables such as attitudes, skills, opportunity, intent, knowledge or emotions.

Mediating and moderating variables allow you to specify and intensify the effect of key variables on the resulting variables.

Thus, the model of knowledge management culture includes six explanatory hypothesis paths logical relationships between variables determining and managing mediated motivation, attitude, intention, skills and knowledge.

It is studies on traditional styles and transformational leadership in which the difference between external demands and resources for talent tunable leader explained but reducing participation to a function of expectation.

It is studies on knowledge networks as a result of the interplay between market demands and resource optimization based on information of possible scenarios.

This is studies opportunities and capabilities as a result of a participatory and competitive culture, because every opportunity corresponds to a skill.

In this research, the effects of the surrounding information regarding the culture and management are explained by the interplay of variables determinants with the styles of leadership, opportunities, capabilities, goals and objectives.

The management proposed plausible scenarios is studied from the intentionality of its objectives and targets based on information in the balance between demands and resources.

The formation of knowledge networks is explained from the norms, values, beliefs and perceptions talents, as well as the motivation of leaders, training of skills, knowledge and attitudes about planned and systematic decisions.

The contribution of this work to the state of knowledge is the specification of relations and logical paths between cultures variables that determine knowledge management through mediating variables.

However, the possible relationships between the variables included in the model requires further explanation that can be compared with established. In this sense, the debate on the direct determination of management from the norms, values, beliefs and perceptions contrasts with the specification of this model, as mediating variables may be deleted and diversify autocratic organizations in participatory organizations.

Therefore, the model specification explains the culture and organizational management balanced between their demands and resources, opportunities and capabilities, power and influence.

In contexts of uncertainty, scarcity and risk, organizations tend to be more participatory and require culture and management models more diverse, specific and innovative.

However, organizations even if their environment is uncertain, have based their emergence and persistence from the balance between its processes. The objectives and goals of the organizations not only reflect their culture, but also base their human essence, as leaders and followers are the central elements of their intentions and products.