Organizational culture and the voice of the small enterprises in the electrical engineering [629297]

Organizational culture and the “voice” of the small enterprises in the electrical engineering
service sector of Macedonia
ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on a very important aspect of the organizational functioning, organizational culture.
The phenomenon has been linked to numerous indicators of organizational success and there are a
number of efforts to measure it. However, research has been sparse in South Eastern Europe,
especially in studying SME ’s. Therefore this paper proposes a new instrument for measuring
organizational culture developed in South Eastern Europe and tests the applicability in Small and
Medium Enterprises. The study is done in the Republic of Macedonia using a convenient sample of
employees from three companies. Results show the value of the findings for the companies as well as
the applicability of the new instrument. Further validation using a representative sample is suggested.
Keywords: organizational culture, Vox Organizationis

1
Organizational culture and the “voice” of the small enterprises in the electrical
engineering service sector of Macedonia

Abstract
This paper focuses on a very important aspect of th e organizational functioning,
organizational culture. The phenomenon has been lin ked to numerous indicators of
organizational success and there are a number of ef forts to measure it. However, research has
been sparse in South Eastern Europe, especially in studying SME’s. Therefore this paper
proposes a new instrument for measuring organizatio nal culture developed in South Eastern
Europe and tests the applicability in Small and Med ium Enterprises. The study is done in the
Republic of Macedonia using a convenient sample of employees from three companies.
Results show the value of the findings for the comp anies as well as the applicability of the
new instrument. Further validation using a represen tative sample is suggested.
Keywords: organizational culture, Vox Organizationis, SME’s, Republic of Macedonia

The latest business experiences show that the organ izational culture is crucial for
extraordinary performances of the companies. It is so powerful and important that when not
aligned with the organizational structure, business strategy and leader’s values, it represents
the company’s most bitter opponent on the market (S chein, 2010). The organizational culture
is more and more recognized as an advantage that ca n be applied to improve performance
(Alvesson, 2002). Therefore, by exploring the nucle us of the values and practices that their
members or groups espouse over time, many organizat ions strive to measure their
organizational cultures through well-known models e stablished by recognized authors or
adopt internally generated methods or tools to prov ide tangible or understandable parameters
to estimate their organizational culture and its in fluence on their functioning (Dauber et al,

2
2012).
Although being dominant form of business worldwide, Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) are being incomparably less rese arched on the phenomenon of
organizational culture as conceptual link between o rganizational behavior and strategic
management than the big enterprises, especially in South-East Europe (SEE). This imposed
the necessity to provide a micro contribution to a very big topic in the organizational
behavioral sciences by conducting a research in the least explored sizes and types of business
in SEE and specifically in the Republic of Macedoni a.
The importance of this paper is not only that it pr ovides data from a sparsely studies
are, but it also utilizes a new instrument for meas uring organizational culture specifically
created for measuring organizational culture in SME s in the Republic of Macedonia.
The paper will start by exploring the theoretical f oundations of organizational culture
as well as importance of organization culture for S MEs with special accent to the Republic of
Macedonia. The paper will then present the methodol ogical aspects of the study followed by
the results of four companies from the electrical e ngineering service sector of Macedonia.
The implications for managers as well as future stu dies are discussed at the end.

Defining organizational culture

It is a mutual researchers’ opinion that a sole def inition of organizational culture appears to
be blury because the researchers relate the organiz ational culture both with its source and its
outcome (Gray, 1998). The result is an emergence of an ocean of definitions on
organizational culture in the literature which, mos t often define the culture in terms of causes
and effects. Distinguished writers such as Schein ( 2010), criticize that majority of the authors
on organizational culture have different definition s and approaches to determine what they

3
mean by culture, and different criteria for estimat ing in what way culture influences
organizations.
In the review of cultural theories, Khan et al (201 2) suggest that all theories on
organizational culture indicate that culture is col lectively learned and conducted by the
organizational members. It is the organizational cu lture that can guide the personnel what
kind of practices, values and ideas to include in t heir organizational life. Often cited by other
theorists, Hofstede (Hofstede, 1998a; Hofstede, 199 8b; Hofstede et al, 2010), Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner (1997) and Schein (2010), propos e models that describe the
organizational culture through different cultural d imensions, by exploring the nucleus of the
values and practices that a group espouses over tim e.
Hofstede’s organizational culture model (also calle d Hofstede’s multi-focus model)
suggests that by mapping the cultures we get acquai nted with the relations between people in
organizations, their work and the interaction with the external environment (Hofstede,
1998a). The actual culture as is, can not predict if the organization will realize the mission,
vision, objective and strategy, but considering tha t the cultural dimensions are accurately
determined, by translating them in terms of optimal culture it is possible to identify
inconsistencies and if required, overcome the misma tches between the actual and optimal
culture (Hofstede et al, 2010). If practices are sh aped according to the values of the
organizational founders, the organizational members have to follow the practices in order to
retain their organizational membership, but they do not have to accept the values of the
founders (Hofstede, 1998b).
Schein (2010) uses three main levels to analyze org anizational culture: artifacts;
espoused beliefs and values; and basic underlying a ssumptions. Schein (2010) puts the
artefacts “[at the exterior] surface of the organiz ational culture, visible to the observer”
(p.23). This level includes clearly visible and tan gible appearances such as products, physical

4
environment, language, technology, clothing, myths and stories, published values, rituals and
ceremonies, etc. According to Schein, the artifacts are a mirror image of the second and third
layer – the espoused beliefs and assumptions (respe ctively), introduced by founders and
leaders. The second and third layer are the heart o f organizational culture. As the group puts
strategies and philosophies into practice through t rial and error, values and assumptions get
shaped over time.

Measuring organizational culture

The literature is a witness of numerous attempts to identify and measure the
dominating type of organizational culture. The auth ors use affective assessment measures or
self-reporting instruments in order to obtain valid data and come up with conclusions based
on facts i.e. numeric indicators that would further on be used to evaluate the organizational
culture and the forms in which it exists in the org anizations. The literature review shows that
different authors base their assessment of the orga nizational culture on many different aspects
which according to their standpoint would most clos ely define and signify the organizational
culture.
Although the literature shows a large number of var ious instruments at disposal that
the scholar use to obtain more precise results, a p attern of categorization can be noticed in
terms of the aspects that the instruments cover. Fo r example, the Organizational Culture
Profile (OCP) by O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (19 91) assesses the person-organization
match and emphasizes the organizational values as m ain component for determining the
culture. Hofstede’s approach is one of the most cit ed concepts that examines the data from
the perspective of organizational practices and the ir influence on the behavior of the members
of the organization but analyzed on a group rather than on an individual level (Hofstede,

5
1998b). Cameron and Quin (2006) use the Organizatio nal Culture Assessment Instrument
(OCAI) to identify the culture of the organization via its practices and perceptions of its
members and categorize the organizational culture a ccording to the theoretical model of
Competing Values Framework into one of the four cul ture types: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy
and market. Another category of measurement is esta blished upon the content and process of
the culture and this approach is incorporated in th e Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) instrument. The purp ose of the instrument is to determine
what are the commonalities and differences in socie tal and organizational culture between
nations through nine cultural dimensions: uncertain ty avoidance, power distance, collectivism
I (institutional), collectivism II (in-group), gend er egalitarianism, assertiveness, future
orientation, performance orientation and humane ori entation (House et.al., 2004).

The need for a new instrument

The upper mentioned instruments are just few of the many tools which are considered as
standardized (Jung et al, 2007). The number of the instruments for measuring organizational
culture is large so the question of whether another one is needed is a valid one. Nevertheless,
many authors find that the existing traditional way s of measuring the organizational culture
simply do not comply with the challenges and restri ctions that the companies which are
subjects of theirs studies face and they either mod ify the standard instruments or create their
own measuring mechanisms that will suit specific pr ojects and/or organizations. Therefore, it
has been pointed that the organizational culture me asurements need to be adapted to the
broader cultural context (Choi, et al, 2010; Dastma lchian et.al., 2000; Hofstede et.al, 1990).
In addition, the organizational culture theories ar e almost entirely established on
researches conducted in big organizations based in developed countries and in many of their

6
aspects these theories are not applicable to SMEs. The core reason for this tendency
according to a number of researchers (Anderson, 199 9; Zhichang, 2007) lies in the fact that
the big organizations nowadays become even bigger a nd more composite which makes them
a fruitful soil for research. The fact that the “fa st-growing SMEs get a lot of attention in both
national and EU policies” (Mateev and Atanasov, 201 1, p.82 and p.99) is justifying the
critique that the small and medium size enterprises have been unfairly discriminated from
being observed and studied by the researchers as co mplex cultural systems (Psychogios and
Garev, 2012). The SMEs, especially the ones functio ning in countries with transitioning
economies as those in South Eastern Europe faced ve ry unstable business climate in the past
20 years primarily influenced by the alteration fro m one economic system to another and the
drastic changes in their social and other legislati ve policies (Stoica et al, 2012) as well as the
global economic crises. If organizations are consid ered to be living systems which react and
are able to adapt to varying conditions, because of their more organic or flat structure, the
SMEs can respond to any form of environment change with less discomfort than the big
organizations. Additionally, because of the differe nce in structure, less hierarchy, lack of
strict procedures of action or rigid internal and e xternal way of communication, the SMEs are
able to quickly adjust and change direction when fa cing economic uncertainty (Mateev and
Atanasov, 2010). Therefore, organizational culture measures specifically tailored to SME’s
are needed.
Because of the changes of the social systems and tr ansition from centrally planned to
market economy, the enterprises from South-East Eur opean countries are a scientific
challenge for the contemporary management and organ izational behavior discipline. One of
the first studies conducted in Macedonia on organiz ational culture was dealing with the
question whether organizational culture exists at a ll in the Macedonian firms (Bojadziev and
Krliu, 2007). The organizational culture was recogn ized by the organization members mainly

7
in the values set by the companies’ founders. The e mployees show awareness of the existence
of connection between the leadership style and the organizational culture, but they are not
holding the company responsible for their career ad vancement. A more recent research
conducted on the territory of Macedonia shows that the national culture has stronger impact
on the behavior of the employees compared to the or ganizational culture especially in the
small and medium size enterprises (Magdinceva-Sopov a, 2012). Therefore, the need to an
instrument that will measure organizational culture adapted to the broader culture is needed.
The analysis of different models show that cultural aspects coincide to some degree
and that many of the recent theories derived or evo lved from the previously established ones.
Such an approach is the VOX Organizationis model (T omovska-Misoska et al., 2011)
implemented in this research. Similarly to the idea for existence of relationship between the
national and organizational culture pervading in Ho fstede’s, Trompenaars’s and Schein’s
theories this model’s dimensions are “developed to reflect the broader cultural environment
and the needs of the organizations in Macedonia and the broader region.” (Tomovska-
Misoska et al., 2011, p.7). The instrument has been used in two previous studies measuring
organizational alignment in different organizations in the Republic of Macedonia (Limani
et.al., 2015; Bojadziev et.al., 2016).
This paper presents another attempt to explore the organizational culture of SME’s
using Vox Organizationis. The paper provides the ov erall results of the organizational culture
as well as comparisons along different demographic dimensions.

Methodology

The study was conducted in the Republic of Macedoni a. The sample was drawn from
three SMEs providing electrical engineering service s and running their operations in and out

8
of Macedonia.
The instrument contains four dimensions measured on a 4 point Likert type scale
(strongly disagree; disagree; agree; and strongly a gree). The four dimensions are: decision
making and behavior; people versus task orientation ; innovativeness and risk taking; and
open versus closed system. These four dimensions ar e appraised using 35 questions in total.
To avoid response set some of the questions are rev erse coded. The complete instrument can
be found in Appendix 1.
The first set of questions (Q1 to Q9) intends to un derstand the level of bureaucracy in
the studied Macedonian enterprises since it is a po tential danger for their development and
entrepreneurial orientation as one of the key facto rs for elevating the company above the
business mediocrity. This is the dimension Decision Making and Behavior (DMB).
The second group of questions (Q10 to Q17, are for the dimension People-Task (PT)
and are related to the social care or the human rel ations within the company. This dimension
is concerned with the positive impact on the self-c onfidence of the employees to carry on
new challenges as part of their jobs, to increase t heir competence by investing in their
education and training, to increase their job marke t value as workforce, etc.
The third dimension (Q18 to Q24), Innovativeness an d Risk Taking (IRT), is
supposed to measure the tendency towards risk organ izational actions as a significant
indicator of resistance or acceptance of entreprene urial actions in building the company’s
competitive advantage.
The analysis of the answers of the fourth group of questions (Q25 to Q35) will
evaluate if the respondents consider their companie s belonging to organizational models that
do or do not depend on exterior surrounding in seek ing solutions for managerial concerns, as
well as to the accessibility of the information to the employees and how easy or hard the new
members of the organization are accepted. This set of questions examines if the organizations

9
are isolated from the influence of the technologica l advancement, the societal characteristics
and the decisions of the authorities or they are dy namically interacting with the external
variables like government, competition, customers a nd providers. The dimension is titled
Open versus Closed system (OC).
In accordance with the methodology proposed for Vox Organizations, an employee
survey was conducted in all three companies. To ens ure anonymity and confidentiality the
companies will be named A, B and C in the text. The total number of participant is 52. The
age dissemination of the sample indicates that the majority of the employees (38.5%) are
between 20 and 30 years old. There is an equal spli t of participants who are between 31 and
40 (25%), and those who are between 41 and 50 years old (25%). The category of
participants above 51 years accounts for 11.5%. 51. 9% of the employees hold bachelor’s
degree, 40.4% is with secondary school diploma, whi le 7.7% have master’s degree. In terms
of years of working experience in the company, 19.2 % have less than 1 year of working
experience in the company, 26.9% work between 1 and 5 years in the company, 40.4%
belong to the category between 6 and 10 years and 1 3.5% are with more than 10 years of
working experience in the studied companies. 21.2% of the overhaul employees are on
managerial positions. According to the information gathered from the interviews with the
organizations’ management, by profession, 78% of th e respondents are electrical engineers
and electricians. The rest of the 22% of the employ ees are IT specialists, mechanical, civil
and chemical engineers. The complete breakdown of t he demographic data is given in Figure
4, using 100% stacked bar chart.
>> Insert Figure 1<<
The next section will provide the analysis of the r esults obtained by using the Vox
Organizationis instrument for measuring the organiz ational culture.

10
Results

To gain insight into the organizational culture in the sector the scores for each
dimension of the organizational culture were calcul ated first. The descriptive statistics are
presented as mean and standard deviation for each c ompany and are used to determine each
company’s cultural dimensions (Table 1).
>>Insert Table 1<<
Shapiro-Wilk test, presented in Table 2, showed tha t the group’s data were normally
distributed verified by the significance level whic h for all dimensions is greater than 0.05.
>>Insert Table 2<<
The exploration of the organizational culture in th e SME’s continued with checking
for differences between the companies. The groups were checked for equality of variances in
order to determine the method for interpreting resu lts and the results of the test are presented
in Table 3.
>>Insert Table 3<<
The statistical significance for all dimensions exc ept OC was higher than 0.05 and
allowed proceeding to One-Way Anova (presented in T able 4) for interpreting the results,
while for OC dimension heterogeneity of variances w as detected and therefore Welch
ANOVA (presented in Table 5) was used to interpret the results.
>>Insert Table 4<<
>>Insert Table 5<<
One-Way and Welch Anova tests showed that there wa s no statistical difference in

11
the means of Decision making and behavior, Innovati veness and Risk Taking and Open
versus Close system dimensions. Exception of this i s the People versus Task dimension for
which p-value is less than 0.05.
The values of the DMB means (Table 1 and Table 4) a re around the mid-point
between the possible minimum and maximum with preva lence towards the higher score
which indicates that the companies nurture democrat ic values in decision making. The PT
means show a balance between taking care for the jo b done and the well-being of the
employees with higher orientation towards human rel ationships in Company A (Table 1 and
Table 4). IRT means of the three companies are mode rate indicating that the companies tend
to stability but at the same time they encourage en trepreneurial spirit and original ideas in
order to sustain long-term. This trend is stronger in Company A than in Companies B and C
(Table 1 and Table 4). The OC scores show slightly higher openness towards external
systems and more transparency in the flow of inform ation towards employees and acceptance
of the newcomers in Company A and C compared to Com pany B (Table 1 and Table 5).
The study further examined if there were difference s in scores of the respondents
based on their demographical characteristics, by ru nning Kruskal-Wallis H test. The four
cultural dimensions scores were checked against 6 d emographic variables: age, gender,
education, current position in the company, work ex perience in the current company and
work experience on current position. The values are presented as mean ranks and are
summarized in the Table 6. The distributions of all four dimensions scores were not similar
for all groups in each category. No statistically s ignificant difference was encountered
between different age groups. Females show more dem ocratic values than male (mean ranks:
34.69>23.77) and the gender scores difference is st atistically significant. The “Education”
and “Current position in the company” showed statis tically significant differences between
the demographic groups for all dimension. “Work e xperience in the company” and “Work

12
experience in the current position” showed statisti cally significant differences between
groups for some of the dimensions.
>>Insert Table 6 <<

To uncover which demographic groups are different i n terms of answers on different
dimensions where statistically significant differen ces were uncovered, pair wise comparisons
of the mean ranks were conducted in order to determ ine which groups were different. The
results were broken-down per category and below are outlined the results pointing out the
characteristic differences detected.
For the “Current position in the company” multiple comparisons were not performed
as there are less than three test fields. The findi ngs point that Managers score statistically
significantly higher than non-managers on all four dimensions. The cross tabulations show
that on the DMB dimension, almost all respondents f rom the managerial group scored above
29 while all the respondents from the non-manageria l group scored below 29. Similarly, on
the P-T dimension, the score of 21 appears as a bre aking point – all the managers scored 21
and above, while the majority of non-managers score d 21 and below. The IRT scores in the
managerial group are 17 and higher, while most of t he respondents from the non-managerial
group scored 17 or less. The O-C scores show that 1 2 out of 41 respondents belonging to the
non-managerial group scored 32 and the majority of them scored below 32. Majority of the
respondents on managerial positions scored 33 or hi gher on the O-C dimension.
The results for the level of education are given in Table 7. Respondents with
secondary education score lower than the BSc and MS c groups on all four dimensions and
these differences are statistically significant.
>>Insert Table 7<<
The results for “Work experience in the company” ar e given in Table 8. The results

13
show that respondents with more than 10 years withi n the company score statistically
significantly different (higher) on DMB and OC dime nsions compared to the respondents
being 6 to 10 years within the company.
>>Insert Table 8<<
The results for “Work experience in the current pos ition” are presented in Table 9.
The data point that OC dimension scores are differe ntly distributed among the respondent
groups with different number of years in the same p osition, but it cannot be concluded where
the differences lie.
>>Insert Table 9<<

Conclusion

The organizational culture is closely linked to var ious parameters of organizational
success. As such it has been a focus of research in a number of studies and there are
numerous instruments for measurement. However it ha s been sparsely researched in the
South Eastern Europe and it has been rarely studies in the SME’s sector. Therefore this paper
aimed at showing the applicability of an instrument developed to measure the organizational
culture in SME’s in South Eastern Europe. The study was implemented in three companies
SME’s in the Republic of Macedonia.
The results uncover the value of studying organizat ional culture for the companies
and show the value of understanding the different d imensions proposed and measured by the
Vox Organizationis instrument. As the study was con ducted on a small sample, a conclusion
on the predominant organizational culture in the el ectrical engineering service sector in
Macedonian SMEs cannot be drawn. However, the resul ts of the research can serve to the
studied companies as base for building strategic fr amework for their long-term sustainability.

14
The research of the study and the differences in th e scores of the respondents from different
educational level groups clearly indicate that educ ation plays significant role in how
respondents understand and perceive the organizatio nal culture. Therefore, one of the
recommendations towards achieving high performance to all three companies is to touch
beyond the professional education and invest in the employees’ familiarization with the
contemporary market oriented practices via various forms of training. To detach from the risk
aversion which although not too much, is still pres ent in the surveyed electrical engineering
companies, focus should be put on building confiden ce in organizations’ leaders, raising the
competence of the employees, nurturing interaction with the external environment, expertise
and internal knowledge sharing among the members of the organization.
Although the main goal of this research was to com pare the organizational cultures of
the chosen electrical engineering companies based o n the organizational alignment measuring
with the use of VOX Organizationis method, it also provides solid ground for other studies.
One such study could be “diagnosing” the predominan t organizational culture in terms of
tendencies of the organizational functioning of the SMEs from the electrical engineering
services sector in Macedonia. In order to listen to “the voice of the organizations from the
electrical engineering service sector” and draw con clusions on the upper mentioned question,
a research should be conducted on a larger represen tative sample. To avoid unequal
distribution, the sample and its subsets (companies ) should be carefully chosen in terms of
size in order to avoid the situation occurring in t his research where a conclusion on how
demographics influence each of the company is not a pplicable because of the size of each
subset deriving from the VOX Organizationis approac h. To completely validate the Vox
Organizationis for use in the SME’s sector a repres entative random sample from
organizations in different sectors should be used i n future studies.

15
References:

Anderson, Phillip. 1999. “Complexity theory and org anization science”. Organization
Science, 10: 216-232.

Alvesson, Matts. 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage Publications.

Bojadziev, Marjan. and Krliu Venera, 2007, Organiz ational culture as a driving force in
modern organizations. Paper presented at 2nd Annual International Conference on European
Integration of University American College Skopje, May, Skopje.

Bojadziev, Marjan, Tomovska Misoska Ana, Pesev Anto ni and Stefanoska Petkovska
Miodraga. 2016. “ Organizational alignment in ICT c ompany in the Republic of Macedonia”.
Business and Economic Research , 6: 424-439.

Cameron, S. Kim and Quinn E. Robert. 2006. Diagnosi ng and changing organizational
culture. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Choi, Yun Seok, Seo Minhee, Scott David, and Marti n Jeffrey. 2010. “Validation of the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument: An ap plication of the Korean version”.
Journal of Sport Management , 24:169-189.

Dastmalchian, Ali, Lee Sangho and Ng Ignace. 2000. “The interplay between organizational
and national cultures: A comparison of organization al practices in Canada and South Korea
using the Competing Values Framework”. International Journal of Human Resource
Management , 11: 388-412.

Dauber, Daniel, Fink Gerhard and Yolles Maurice. 20 12. “A Configuration Model of
Organizational Culture”. Sage Open . 2 (1): 1-16.

Gray, Roderick. 1998. Organizational culture and ps ychological contract. Kumpania
Consulting; http://www.rodericgray.com/orgculturepsycon.pdf ; Accessed 27 December
2016.

16

Hofstede, Geert. 1998a.” Identifying organizational subcultures: an empirical approach”.
Journal of Management Studies , 35: 1-12.

Hofstede, Geert. 1998b. “Attitudes, values and orga nizational culture: Disentangling the
concepts”. Organization Studies , 19: 477-492.

Hofstede, Geert, Hofstede, Geert Jan and Minkov, M ichael. 2010. Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for
survival (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill USA.

Hofstede, Geert, Neuijen Bram, Ohayv Denis Daval an d Sanders Geert. 1990. “Measuring
organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantita tive study across twenty cases”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 286-318.

House, Robert J., Hanges Paul, J., Mansour Javidan, Dorfman Peter W. and Gupta Vipin.
2004. Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GL OBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Jung, Tobias, Scott Tim, Davies T.O Huw, Bower P Pe ter, Whalley Diane, McNally Rosalind
and Mannion Russell. 2009. “Instruments for the Exp loration of Organisational Culture: A
review of the literature”. Public Administration Review, 69: 1087-1096.

Khan, Muhammad Tariq, Khan, Naseer Ahmed, Sheraz Ah med and Mahfooz Ali. 2012.
“Connotation of Organizational Culture – Models and Categories”. Universal Journal of
Management and Social Sciences , 2 (9): 39-49.

Limani, Artan, Tomovska-Misoska Ana and Bojadjiev M arjan. 2015. “Organizational
alignment as a model of sustainable development in the public sector in the Republic of
Macedonia”. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5: 51-68.

17
Magdinceva-Sopova, Marija. 2012. Menadzment na orga nizaciskata kultura (Management of
organizational culture) . Bogdanci: Sofija.

Mateev, Miroslav Iordanov and Anastasov Yanko. 2011 . “On the Growth of Micro, Small
and Medium-Sized Firms in Central and Eastern Europ e: A Dynamic Panel Analysis” .
Banking & Finance Review , 3: 81-103.

O’Reilly, Charles A., Chatman Jennifer and Caldwell David F. 1991. “People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approa ch to assessing person-organization fit”.
Academy of Management Journal , 34: 487-516.

Psychogios, Alexandros and Garev Saso. 2012. “Under standing Complexity Leadership
Behavior in SMEs: Lessons from a Turbulent Business Environment Emergence”.
Emergence: Complexity and Organization , 14(3): 1-22.

Schein, Edgar. 2010. Organizational Culture and Lea dership (4th ed). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Stoica, Michael, Florea Liviu and Lukacs Edit. 2012 . “Small Business Responsiveness in a
Developing Economy: Does Organizational Culture Mat ter? ”. Annals of “Dunarea de Jos”
University of Galati, 3: 1-14.

Tomovska-Misoska, Ana, Bojadziev Marjan, Stefanovsk a Miodraga and Nikolovska Zdenka.
2011. VOX Organizationis – theoretical basis and me thodological considerations in the
development of an instrument for organizational cul ture; http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/42571/; Accessed 27 December 2016.

Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner Charles. 1997. Riding the waves of Culture:
Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. Londo n: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Zhichang, Zhu. 2007. “Complexity science, system th inking and pragmatic sensibility”.
System Research and Behavioral Science, 24: 445-464.

18

19
Appendix 1. The Vox Organizationis instrument
Decision making and behavior
The organization has clear “rules of the game”
There is an atmosphere of trust in this organizatio n
When changes are made, the decisions are openly and on time communicated to the relevant
parties
Leaders and managers consult with subordinates in t he decision making process
The organization has written policies and procedure s***
Achieving the results is more important than follow ing the procedures
The decisions are centralized at the top***
The employees are trusted to act according to organ izationally accepted norms and standards
in situations not governed by organizational rules and procedures
There is shared understanding of the appropriate be havior in the organization
People-Task
The organization provides employees with opportunit y for professional development and
growth
The organization takes care about the social atmosp here and employee relations
The organization respect its employees and treats them in a consistent and fair manner
The organization is only interested in the work peo ple do***
The organization considers employee’s private lives as their own business***
The organization pays little attention to physical work environment***
The management is stingy with small things***
Employees receive timely feedback about their perfo rmance ( formal or informal)
Innovativeness and risk taking
The organization encourages experimenting and tryin g new things
Employees are encouraged to develop new and origina l ideas and/or products
Employees are encouraged “not to rock the boat”***
The organization considers innovation and appropria te level of risk taking as a way to build
long term sustainability
The organization cherishes stability as a prerequis ite for the long term sustainability***
The organization does not take risks, it uses tried and tested approach***
Employees and the organization try to be pioneers

20
Open-closed system
The organization encourages intra-departmental coll aboration
The organization encourages inter-department collab oration
The organization encourages collaboration with cust omers and/or suppliers
The performance management system supports group wo rk
The organization strives to expand in markets
The organization invests in learning new things
The organization does not have special ties with lo cal community***
The organization and people are closed and secretiv e***
In this organizations new employees need more than a year to feel at home***
The organization puts emphasis on meeting customer needs
The organization nurtures positive collaboration wi th other companies, even if they are
competitors

21
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for each dimension
Dimension Mean ±± ±±Std. deviation
Decision making and behavior 26.21 ± 3.012
People – Task 20.81 ±± ±± 2.482
Innovativeness and risk taking 17.31 ±± ±± 1.956
Open – Close System 31.08 ±± ±± 4.639

22
Table 2. – Tests of Normality for each dimension

Company Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig.
Decision making and behavior A 0.969 17 0.802
B 0.937 29 0.082
C 0.923 6 0.530
People – Task A 0.933 17 0.240
B 0.940 29 0.101
C 0.902 6 0.387
Innovativeness and risk taking A 0.937 17 0.285
B 0.939 29 0.093
C 0.914 6 0.463
Open-Close System A 0.969 17 0.793
B 0.943 29 0.121
C 0.976 6 0.933

23
Table 3 – Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Decision making and behavior 0.108 2 49 0.897
People – Task 2.232 2 49 0.118
Innovativeness and risk taking 0.783 2 49 0.463
Open-Close System 6.061 2 49 0.004

24
Table 4 – One-way ANOVA
Sum of
Squares Df Mean
Square F Sig.
Decision making and
behavior Between
Groups 4.257 2 2.128 0.227 0.797
Within Groups 458.416 49 9.355
Total 462.673 51
People – Task Between
Groups 56.249 2 28.124 5.345 0.008
Within Groups 257.828 49 5.262
Total 314.077 51
Innovativeness and risk
taking Between
Groups 21.995 2 10.998 3.113 0.053
Within Groups 173.082 49 3.532
Total 195.077 51

25
Table 5 – Welch ANOVA (Robust Tests of Equality of Means)

Statistic a df1 df2 Sig.
Open-Close System Welch 1.562 2 20.499 .234

26
Table 6. Kruskall-Wallis test for each cultural dimension fo r the 6 demographic variables
(the p values in bold are statistically significant )
Demographic category
(χ2= Test statistics; p = mean rank) Cultural dimensions
Decision
making
&
behavior People-
Task Innovativeness
& Risk taking Open
vs.
Closed
system
Age
Deg. Of freedom =3 χ2(3) 0.598 1.036 2.229 0.224
p 0.897 0.793 0.526 0.974
Gender
Deg. of freedom =1 χ2(1) 5.220 2.226 1.440 0.224
p 0.022 0.136 0.230 0.166
Education
Deg. of freedom =2 χ2(2) 12.5 25.159 21.615 16.476
p <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Current position in the company
Deg. of freedom =1 χ2(1) 19.571 14.073 13.213 16.898
p <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Years of work with the company
Deg. of freedom =3 χ2(3) 8.343 7.362 5.553 11.83
p 0.039 0.061 0.136 0.008
Years of work in the current
position
Deg. of freedom =3 χ2(3) 7.615 4.823 6.577 8.38
p 0.055 0.185 0.087 0.039

27
Table 7. DMB, PT, IRT, OC – level of education average rank distribution and statistical
significance
Cultural
dimension Sample pair
Secondary Sch. –
BSc. Adj.
Sig.
(<0.05) Sample pair
Secondary Sch. –
MSc. Adj.
Sig.
(<0.05) Sample pair
BSc. – MSc. Adj.
Sig.
(>0.05) Secondary
Mean rank BSc.
Mean rank Secondary
Mean rank MSc.
Mean rank BSc.
Mean rank MSc.
Mean rank
DMB 18 31.19 0.007 18 39.50 0.025 31.19 39.50 0.896
PT 14.02 33.98 <0 14.02 41.50 0.002 33.98 41.50 1
IRT 14.83 34 < 0 14.83 37.12 0.019 34 37.12 1
OC 16.83 31.61 0.002 16.83 42.75 0.005 31.61 42.75 0.5

28
Table 8. DMB and O-C – “Work experience in the company” ave rage rank distribution and
statistical significance
Sample
pair
6-10/1-5 Adj.
Sig.
<0.05 Sample pair
6-10 /< 1
Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
6-10/>10 Adj.
Sig.
<0.05 Sample
pair
1-5/<1 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
1-5/>10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
<1/>10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 6-10
Mean
rank 1-
5
Mean
rank 6-10
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank 6-10
Mean
rank >10
Mean
rank 1-5
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank 1-5
Mean
Rank >10
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank >10
Mean
rank
DMB 21.29 25.82 1 21.29 29.2 1 21.29 39.64 0.029 25.82 29.2 1 25.82 39.64 0.273 29.2 39.64 0.935
O-C 19.79 27.5 0.822 19.79 28.4 0.815 19.79 41.93 0.004 27.5 28.4 1 27.5 41.93 0.229 28.4 41.93 0.407

29
Table 9. OC – “Work experience in the current position” ave rage rank distribution and
statistical significance
Sample
pair
1-5/<1 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
1-5 /6-10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
1-5/>10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
<1/6-10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
<1/>10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 Sample
pair
6-10/>10 Adj.
Sig.
>0.05 6-10
Mean
rank 1-5
Mean
rank 6-10
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank 6-10
Mean
rank >10
Mean
rank 1-5
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank 1-5
Mean
Rank >10
Mean
rank <1
Mean
rank >10
Mean
rank
O-C23.18 23.72 1 23.18 34.7 0.267 23.18 47 0.192 23.72 34.7 0.385 23.72 47 0.227 34.7 47 1

30
Figure 1 . Demographic data of the sample