Page 293 - Proceeding 2015

HUDREA Adrian FAMP
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF ROMANIAN LOCAL PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS CCASP

making them more prone to use their assets in order to maximize their return on investment. Once with
the change of paradigm in public administration (the development of the New Public Management),
characterized in particular by the desire to take over some ideas, concepts, techniques, tools from the
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
private sector in order to adapt them to the public sector began an increased interest in organizational
culture in the public organizations. However, we cannot see the same effort in the public sector as we do

in the private sector regarding organizational culture and its role in the success of the entire organization.
Although other countries, western and especially northern ones, are much better than Romania (and
Eastern Europe in general) in using the principles of organizational culture, there are still differences in

which this theory is regarded in the public sector versus the private one.

The concern of the corporations for organizational culture has developed an increase of the academic
interest on this subject also, which began researching this aspect in an effort to better understand what it

is, how it works and what connection exists between it and organizational performance. As usual, in the
social studies field, there were heated debates on the subject, such as from which perspective should
30 th – 31 st October 2015 ”Strategic Management for Local Communities” Bucharest should be used in its study (quantitative, qualitative).
organizational culture be studied (sociological, psychological, anthropological etc.) or what methods

The literature presents several models of analysis of the organizational culture, some based on simple
models, such Edgar Schein’s model (1990), which presents three levels of the organizational culture

starting with a visible level and ending with the level that holds all the values and the basic assumptions
and which is more difficult to approach, or Geert Hofstede’s (2010) model of national culture which
consists of six dimensions that represent independent preferences for one state of affairs over another

that distinguish countries (rather than individuals) from each other (Power Distance Index, Individualism
versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Long Term Orientation

versus Short Term Normative Orientation, Indulgence versus Restraint).

Others are based on more complex models such as Geert Hofstede’s (2015) Multi-Focus Model, which
consists of six autonomous dimensions or variables and two semi-autonomous dimensions (Means-

oriented vs. Goal-oriented, Internally driven vs. Externally driven, Easygoing work discipline vs. Strict work
discipline, Local vs. Professional, Open system vs. Closed system, Employee-oriented vs. Work-oriented,
Degree of acceptance of leadership style, Degree of identification with your organization), or the model

of Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (2011), which claim that there are four major types of organizational
cultures (Clan, Adhocracy, Market and Hierarchy) or that of Daniel Denison (1990), which identifies a
single type of organizational culture, but characterized by four main traits (Adaptability, Mission,

291