Register to read the introduction…
What are the implications of these changes to current and future strategies?
Different cultural contexts are likely to influence individuals. One of them is the organizational culture. An organizational culture is the taken-for-granted assumptions and behaviors that make sense of people's organizational context and therefore contributes to how groups of people respond and behave in relation to issues they face. Culture can be conceived as consisting of four different layers: values, beliefs, behaviors and taken-for-granted assumptions (Johnson et al., 2011: 168-175).
To answer the question, first I will discuss the pre and today for each layer of culture. Second, I will look at the implications of these changes to current and future strategies.
Values. Back in 1990, it was all about winning with about winning with a young and exciting team. Now, it is still about winning. But winning is also possible with football players you buy for a lot of money, and winning also leads to more money. In addition, now it isn't just about winning, it is also about selling MUFC …show more content…
Because “culture” is the first phase and “development of strategy” the second, there will be another development of strategy today then in 1990 (Johnson et al., 2011: 175). This means the current and future strategy is not only about winning, but also about selling MUFC stuff; it is not only about the spirit, but also about buying the greatest players; and it is not about a small organization, but about a very big one (and therefore about a lot of money).
Reflect on table 4.2 and explain how the organization's ethical stance and corporate social responsibility has shifted.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the commitment by organizations to 'behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and the society at large' (Johnson et al., 2011: 134). In table 4.2 different stances on CSR are described.
Back in the 90's, MUFC had another CSR stance than now. Twenty years ago it incorporated multiple stakeholder interests and expectations rather than just shareholders as influence on organizational influences and purposes. Also, management was a board-level issue. Therefore, in that time they had a forum for stakeholder interaction (ibid: 135-136).
Now, as said, there is only one “leader”: the Glazer family. And they want to make profit. Therefore, these days MUFC has a laissez-faire CSR stance (ibid:
Different cultural contexts are likely to influence individuals. One of them is the organizational culture. An organizational culture is the taken-for-granted assumptions and behaviors that make sense of people's organizational context and therefore contributes to how groups of people respond and behave in relation to issues they face. Culture can be conceived as consisting of four different layers: values, beliefs, behaviors and taken-for-granted assumptions (Johnson et al., 2011: 168-175).
To answer the question, first I will discuss the pre and today for each layer of culture. Second, I will look at the implications of these changes to current and future strategies.
Values. Back in 1990, it was all about winning with about winning with a young and exciting team. Now, it is still about winning. But winning is also possible with football players you buy for a lot of money, and winning also leads to more money. In addition, now it isn't just about winning, it is also about selling MUFC …show more content…
Because “culture” is the first phase and “development of strategy” the second, there will be another development of strategy today then in 1990 (Johnson et al., 2011: 175). This means the current and future strategy is not only about winning, but also about selling MUFC stuff; it is not only about the spirit, but also about buying the greatest players; and it is not about a small organization, but about a very big one (and therefore about a lot of money).
Reflect on table 4.2 and explain how the organization's ethical stance and corporate social responsibility has shifted.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the commitment by organizations to 'behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and the society at large' (Johnson et al., 2011: 134). In table 4.2 different stances on CSR are described.
Back in the 90's, MUFC had another CSR stance than now. Twenty years ago it incorporated multiple stakeholder interests and expectations rather than just shareholders as influence on organizational influences and purposes. Also, management was a board-level issue. Therefore, in that time they had a forum for stakeholder interaction (ibid: 135-136).
Now, as said, there is only one “leader”: the Glazer family. And they want to make profit. Therefore, these days MUFC has a laissez-faire CSR stance (ibid: