Businesses are reconfiguring in ways that create new corporate cultures shaped not only by technologies and markets but also by the cultural preferences of their leaders and the interaction of their employees as they respond to change. Galbraith (1997) proposes that, instead of merely responding to change, global organizations should be designed for change. Drucker (1997) reiterates this sentiment and suggests that it is not about replacing the current organizational designs, but that new designs are “being superimposed on them” (p. 4). He con- tinues by noting that organizational design must incorporate “different pur- poses, different people, and different cultures” (p. 5). Pascale et al. (2000) use a compelling organic metaphor to describe the emerging global businesses based on the principles of self-organization. Their “life science model” suggests that organizations today develop like a new species by “creating an ecological niche— innovate . . . proliferate . . . aggregate” (p. 3). It is this rapid response sequence that successful multinational organizations need to emulate in order to remain competitive and to thrive in today’s brisk international business environment.
Odenwald (1996) explores contrasting corporate cultures and differing corporate values within three Japanese companies. Matsushita is very policy oriented, with a strong emphasis on customer satisfaction while maintaining a focus on its contribution to society to coexist and co-prosper. Its concern for individuals results in a lower sense of risk-taking as a company. Sony’s culture, on the other hand, is liberal, with a focus on internationalism and a high tolerance for risk and change. Then there is Mitsubishi’s culture that focuses on fair play in business, with an orientation toward employee satisfaction to ensure high morale. Minoru Makihara (1998), president of Mitsubishi Corporation, states that leadership should be strategically focused on relation- ships in which they “lead through global trust networks” (p. 18). In the United States private, for-profit enterprises such as Stanley Home Products, Mary Kay, and Tupperware as well as volunteer, nonprofit groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and MADD illustrate how organizations can tie into the strength of the independent individual worker for collective success. Moreover, the organization is sustained by the combined effort of its members who are imbued with a clear vision and outcome. The companies that “seize the high ground . . . by inspiring front line workers to operate as independent agents, pursuing their own solutions with little central control” will succeed and thrive in this volatile global bazaar (Pascale et al., 2000, p. 12). This networking has prompted some scholars to describe the new emerging organizational design as a web, particularly given our wired society (Drucker, 1997; Galbraith, 1997; Pascale et al., 2000).
Finally, the Incubator culture serves the self-expression and self- fulfillment of its employees. This culture is managed from a strong egalitarian perspective and performs best within an intensely emotional environment. The driving purpose of these organizations is personal development. The cul- ture provides a sounding board for revolutionary thinking and the unleashing of inventive creativity. The structure is very loose, with few constraints, so as to encourage the “bootlegging” of time on other projects and to promote brain- storming and the entrepreneurial development of pioneering ideas. Employees are dutifully devoted to the organization but are individually loyal to their profession and committed to their self-interest (i.e., “I”-Incorporated). Consequently, they “may take a free ride until their eggs are close to hatching [and] larger organizations [can] find themselves successively undermined” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 180). For this reason, some suggest that these organizations are dependent on an individualistic culture and may be viewed as transitional rather than permanent. Examples of these types of organizations include the many start-up firms in the computer industry, whether it is Silicon Valley in the United States or Silicon Glen in Scotland. The Incubator model can also be commonly found in Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland.