Organizational culture is fundamentally about symbolic meaning and as Essay - 7

Organizational culture is fundamentally about symbolic meaning and as such cannot be managed. Discuss - Essay Example In each organisation, there exist patterns of symbols, beliefs, myths, rituals, and practices that have been developed over time. These, in turn, form general understandings among the organisation’s personnel as to what the organisation represents and how its affiliates should conduct themselves. Organisational culture refers to the behavioural norms as well as values of the members of the organisation. There are two basic kinds of values: the instrumental and the terminal. Terminal values have to do with the preferred effects or outcomes that workers endeavour to achieve. Instrumental values, on the other hand, refer to the esteemed types of behaviours. Organisational culture exists on two levels. The first level is in external expressions of the culture, which are observable and able to make some type of interpretation. The symbols of the cultures of any organisation are evident in communication patterns, the configuration of work spaces and the methods through which authori ty is expressed. Organisational cultures can also be observed during organisational ceremonies. The other level of organisational culture can be observed in the deeply held beliefs, values, attitudes, assumptions, and feelings that lie beneath the behaviour of personnel (Jaffe 2001). Assumptions as well as organisational principles at this stage are not so easy to discern, interpret and comprehend. It is only the level of culture that is in evidence that can be assessed or changed. This level is the one that is often at the centre management activity. The Significance of Organisational Culture Organisational culture is the bond that structures the different organisational settings and makes it possible for personnel to be able to draw meaning from their duties, and also work easily alongside people who have different values from them (Drummond 2000). Strong organisational cultures are those that are clearly ordered, and have personnel that have identical core values. These kinds of cultures usually flourish in military as well as religious organisations. Strong organisational cultures also encourage behavioural consistency by letting the workers know about exactly which behaviours they should adopt. On the negative side, strong organisational cultures can foster implicit control of workers and function as an alternative for formalisation. In Schein's view, organisational culture is a contributor to internal integration as well as the exterior adjustment of the organisation to its settings (Fineman, Sims and Gabriel 2005). For an organisation to be effective, any organisation’s strategies, culture, technology and environmental concerns have to be united to realise the organisation’s objectives. Usually, when managers or other high ranking personnel try to alter organisational cultures, the resultant changes are usually erratic and sometimes even objectionable. For instance, forced changes can make workers become cynical towards all change programs in general. This does not mean that managers should avoid even the suggestion of possible organisational cultural changes. However, they should be ready to allow workers to engender the necessary changes without being coerced (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2008). Organisational culture should be viewed as a framework for fostering the desired meanings. It is important for managers not to attempt to forcibly effect organisational cu

The Notions of 'Immortality' and 'Resurrection' in the Wisdom of Essay

The Notions of 'Immortality' and 'Resurrection' in the Wisdom of Solomon - Essay Example Moreover, the rift between the ‘righteous’ and the ‘wicked’ is a pervasive theme in the book which I would like to examine in detail here so as to understand the story line which leads to the phenomena of ‘immortality’ and ‘resurrection’. Therefore, to achieve this, the wider context in which the book was realized will also be analyzed. The final section will deal with the analysis of these concepts in the light of the Wisdom of Solomon and a conclusion is drawn thereof. ‘Immortality’ and ‘Resurrection’: A Conceptual Analysis There can be different interpretations of the word ‘immortality’ as put forth by Wright – â€Å"(a) ongoing physical life without any form of death ever occurring; (b) the innate possession of an immortal part of one’s being, e.g. the soul (which is itself in need of further multiple definitions), which will survive bodily death; (c) the gift from elsewhere, e.g. from Israel’s God to certain human beings, of an ongoing life, not itself innate in the human form, which could then provide continuity of mortal life, across an interim period, between the present bodily life and future resurrection; (d) a way of describing resurrection itself†.2 ‘Immortality’ and ‘resurrection’ are not to be seen as two opposing concepts.3The word ‘immortality’ can refer to ‘a state in which death is not possible’. Unless one is totally held by the Platonic notion of ‘immortality’ (as in point (b) above);4 ‘resurrection’ can also be seen as a variant of immortality, a form in which it is manifested. This point becomes clear when Paul discusses both resurrection and immortality in his first letter to Corinthians – â€Å"For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishab ility, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’†(1 Cor 15: 53-54). Here for Paul ‘resurrection’ is a new form of bodily life which is immortal and imperishable, that is there can be no more death. Hence he presents ‘resurrection’ within the purview of ‘immortality’. This point is stressed by Wright in the fourth meaning of immortality above i.e it being a way of describing resurrection itself. It was widely held by many Jews who believed in resurrection that there existed an ‘intermediate state’ between death and ‘bodily resurrection’. Many of them believed that the body did not go for a resurrection immediately after death. This state can be regarded as a state of immortality when one regards the ‘close ally’ nature of ‘immortality’ and ‘bodily resurrection’5 This state assumes that there is still a continuing state of existence with a unique personal identity until the physical embodiment is attained in ‘bodily resurrection’ which happens at a point of time in future. Many scholars believe that the way ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ teaches clearly about the immortality of the soul, it cannot do the same for the idea of resurrection. Boismard points out that in the Platonic idea there is no scope for resurrection and hence the idea is to be disregarded in the ‘Wisdom of Solomon