Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE MANAGEMENT
(Stream: Comparative and cross-cultural dimensions of HRD or Diversity issues in HRD)
(Type: Refereed Paper)
Organizational Culture of Judicial Institute:
Mixed Culture between Existential and Role Culture
Chanida Jittaruttha
Chulalongkorn University
Dr. Chanida Jittaruttha
Lecturer at Department of Public Administration,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
Henri-Dunant Rd., Patumwan District,
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
E-mail address: chanida.jittaruttha@gmail.com
Telephone: 662-2187026
Mobile: 668-0850660030
Copyright © 2012 Chanida Jittaruttha

*
Chanida Jittaruttha PhD, Chulalongkorn University
Abstract
Modern organizational culture theorists widely agree that “Cultural-Fit Management” approach is an important practice affecting behavioral management of organizations.
The relationship between individual personality and organizational culture is a topic typically considered in theoretical terms. This article addresses empirical evidence relating to one aspect of this relationship. It aimed to explore appropriate organizational culture that fit to individual culture and investigate determinant factors which lead to cultural-fit of judicial institute. The methodology used in this research is mixed methods conducted by analyzing academic works and a field survey as well.
The article postulates that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that organizational culture of judicial Institute is mixed up with ‘Existential’ and ‘Role’ culture, as the basic assumptions enter into several different relations at the value level. While
‘existential culture’ is providing most beneficial contribution to ‘operating core’, professional Dionysian, ‘role culture’ is providing predictable regularity for those
‘supporting staff’, rational Apollonian. Executives need to be aware of making cultural balance to strike organization achievement or having a ‘clash culture’ situation in
*
This research was granted by the fund of Research, International Affairs, and Academic Service,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, Year 2010.

organizations. The extent of congruency between the values and norms of the organization and individual will proceed cultural-fit if determinant factors of culture are matched with their right conditions.
Keywords: Organizational Culture, Individual Culture, Cultural-Fit Management,
Mixed Culture
At present, it is widely accepted that a vital factor in the selection of new employees in any organization is a factor calle d “cultural fit”. While the role of government is being reshaped or being reform, public management has to cope with this degree of change. Organizational culture is considered as the critical instrument that is being implemented to promote the extent of congruency between the values and norms of the organization and individual. Cornwall and Perlman (1990) concluded that culture is the most important criterion for selecting, hiring and firing employees. On account of the rapid change of managerial context in this century, public organization must pay more attention to a much broader and more important factors including organizational characters and employee’s identity. Handy (1991; p.10) stated,
“Inappropriate cultures lead to unhappiness and inefficiency”. Every organization desires for employees whose attitudes and behaviors are compatible with those of the organization.
1. Problem Statement and Purpose: Important of Cultural-fit Approach on
Public Management and Public Organization
It is much harder for public manager, accustomed to former approach, to face with various new challenges stemming from new paradigm of work. Not only dealing with individual differences of the employee known as
“knowledge worker” or
“intellectual asset” (Stewart, 2002) but public manager is now facing with new

organizational conditions resulting from changes in both technical and conceptual complexity.
In effect, the concept of an organizational culture is another expression of realization that organization itself takes on features which can be characterized as organizational personality and character. Organizations are thus perceived as having their ways of thinking, feeling and acting just as human individuals do. Not only be conside red in descriptive sense as ‘soft criterion’, but organizational culture is understood in prescriptive sense as creating the normative context for shaping behavior of members as well. The great advantage of the approach is that it starts with real organizations and behaviors. Organizational culture theorists (Ott, 1989;
Bolman and Deal, 2003; Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003) asserted that organizations have their own cultures, roles, and needs for achievement such as progress, reputation and successful employees. On another side, individuals are different in many aspects and have their own ways of living and working. If organizational culture does not match with individual one, there will have conflict between both sides. Achieving a best cultural fit between the employee's values, styles, and priorities and the conditions, requirements, and payoffs offered by an organization is a key to cultural congruence. There will be a mistake and damage if the work pattern of organization doesn’t match with the pattern of employees. Public manager needs to know what an organization’s true culture is. (Handy, 1991). A better cultural fit means a person will be happier on the job, will want to stay, and will have greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Johns and Saks, 2005). Without best cultural fit, the chances for success and retention plummet; with best cultural fit, the chances for success ascend.
The Administrative Court is an important judicial institution with a focus on

promoting the concept of justice, maintaining the right balance in protecting freedom of citizens and concerning with public benefits fairly. The goal of organization is fulfilling the expectations of citizens on its ability, which can be relied on fairness and neutrality strand. Cultural-fit management in Administrative Court is critical since it will not only help enhance the effectiveness of those above vital key concepts, but also help ensure the work’s efficiency of the government agencies. If the executives have good insights of organizational cultures that appropriate with the kinds of organization, the types of work and the characteristics of worker, it will be easier to create the desirable values and behaviors that lead to organizational achievement.
Moreover, they need to be aware of making cultural balance to strike organization achievement or having a ‘clash culture’ situation in organizations.
2. Research Questions
This article is aimed to determine the cultural-fit between organization and individual of Administrative Court and to explore determinant factors which lead to cultural-fit and success of both organization and individual, including ‘operating core’ with ‘supporting staff’, on 4 major issued: a) cultural-fit between organizational and individual perceived culture in judicial Institute, Administrative Court, Thailand, b) key success factors leading to cultural-fit in judicial institute, c) factors causing mismatch or incongruent culture, and d) specific motivating factors appropriated with individual culture in judicial institute, Administrative Court, Thailand.
3. Theoretical Framework
Organizational culture is a subject of intense interest in both the popular and academic literature, especially i n the finding of ‘best fit’ and the ‘cultural fit’ approach.
Cultural fit is considered as the most significant key success factor to fulfill individual and organizational need, goal and success. On diagram 1, Judicial institution is

considered as a machine bureaucracy organization as Mintzberg’s (1983) proposed, which has specification of ‘role culture’ in part of ‘supporting staff’ and ‘existential culture’ in part of ‘operating core’ as Handy stated. The interesting point is that organizations are perceived as having their ways of thinking, feeling and acting just as human individuals do, and just as the gods of ancient Greece. By this way of thinking, Handy (1991) used the four gods of ancient Greece to be representative of the four different cultures existed in organizations. This metaphor is very interesting and challenging tool for pursuing research on organizational culture.
This research specifically explored Handy’s Theory of Cultural Propriety, which was found necessary for this study by this reasoning: Handy proposed in his theory that worker will be happy if they can find the workplace appropriated with their cultures. The key concept emphasized in his theory is: (a) inappropriate cultures lead to unhappiness and inefficiency, which gave support to investigate cultural-fit of judicial institute organization and its determinant factors, (b) Handy exclusively separated the typology of cultures into four patterns by using a smart metaphor. Each god represented quite different assumptions of four cultures and was clearly defined, (c)
While every organization and every individual is different, his theory offers four patterns of culture that can be discerned. It is not quite easy to find organizational culture theory that is properly used in all type of organizations, and (d) His theory can be applied in both organizational culture and individual culture. Besides, it goes beyond time, space and settings. No scholarly work has ever been proposed such as the one created by Handy. Handy’s theory promotes cultural-fit as the best solution to help both organization and individual meet their values, proper behaviors and fulfill their needs.
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1993) proposed in ‘Two Factors Theory’

that providing motivation factors to motivate people with opportunities for responsibility achievement and personal growth will be better than focusing on hygienic factors. For this is the same as enabling people to achieve their self- actualization needs. Individuals with strong growth needs respond positively to enrich jobs. He asserted that empowerment is about enriching jobs; allowing individuals to achieve higher level needs. Importantly, public manager should take account that individuals can be both very satisfied and very dissatisfied at the same time. This study also attempts to investigate whether Herzberg’s theory can lead to the answer regarding to motivation factors appropriated for individual in mixed culture of machine bureaucracy organization.
Diagram 1.
Theoretical Framework
Judicial Institute Organizational Culture Normative value
Organization (Role & Existential Culture)
Mintzberg’s organizational structure
Behavioral value
HRM
Recruitment and selection
Process
Cultural - Fit Management
(Handy’s Theory of Cultural Propriety)
Personality
Capability
Characteristic
Individual Culture Behavior
Appropriate person (Role & Existential Culture)
Herzberg’s Two Factors Theory
Value/Belief
Need
(Motivation Factor) Priority
4. Literature Review
The literature Review in this study serves two main purposes. The first is to examine the fundamental theories or concepts which contribute to the research questions. They are: (a) theories on organizational culture and individual culture,

particularly Handy’s (1991) theory and organizational culture concepts from
Smircich (1983), Ott (1989), Schein (2004), and Denhardt and Denhardt (2007), (b) best-fit management and cultural-fit management concepts from Cornwall and
Perlman’s (1990), Bardwick (1998), Bolman and Deal (2003), Johns and Saks
(2005) and Neece (in Hardy and Taylor, 2005), (c) organizational structure concept, particularly Mintzberg’s (1983) theory of organizational structure, (d) individual culture: Maccoby’s (1976) personality concept , individual emotion and brain concept of Handy (1991).
The second purpose of the literature review is to examine theories which help explain the research findings. Those are: (a) Likert’s (1961) concept of ‘System four’ management, (b) leadership in Blake and Mouton’s (1964) concept of managerial grid , (c) Stewart’s (1986) concept of work system and Handy’s (1991) concept of work type
, and (d) psychological theories: Herzberg’s Two Factors theory (Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman, 1993), Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory (1970),
Murray’s Needs Theory (1971), and Hy and Loevinger’s Theory of Ego Development
(1996). Table 1 illustrates four types of Handy’s culture compared with essential involved theories or concepts which were reviewed and synthesized by the researcher.
Table 1.
Handy’s four cultures with essential involved theories
Involved
Theories
& Concepts
Leadership
(Blake &
Mouton)
System 4
(Likert)
Club Culture
ZEUS
Paternalism
Ben evolent authoritative management
Role Culture
APOLLO
Authority
Obedience
E xploitative authoritative management
Task Culture
ATHENA
Team
Management
P articipative management
Existential
Culture
DIONYSUS
Organization
Man
C onsultative management

Organization
Structure
(Mintzberg)
Motivation factor
(Herzberg,
Mausner,
& Snyderman) )
Needs
(Murray)
Ego development
( Hy &
Loevinger)
Simple
Structure
Acceptance/
Challenge
Affiliation
Machine
Bureaucracy
Structure
Responsibility/
Security
Power
Adhocracy
Structure
Success/
Reputation
Achievement
Stage 5
Conformist
Stage 7
Conscientious
Stage 5
Conformist
Stage 7
Conscientious
Stage 5
Conformist
Stage 7
Conscientious
Stage 8
Individualistic
Jungle Fighter Company Man Gamesman
Professional
Bureaucracy
Structure
Growth/
Actualization
Autonomy
Stage 8
Individualistic
Stage 9
Autonomous
Stage 10
Integrated
Craftsman Individual
Personality
(Maccoby)
Individual
Emotion
(Handy)
Individual
Brain
(Handy)
Work type
(Handy)
Work system
(Stewart)
Choleric
Right brain
Intuition/
Hunch
Asterisk
Task
Maintenance
System
Phlegmatic
Left brain
Order/
Sequence
Steady-state
Task
Administration
System
Sanguine
Left brain
Logic/
Reason/
Sequence
Development
Task
Project
System
Melancholic
Right brain
Imagination/
Creativity
Asterisk
Task
Project
System
4.1 Organizational Culture and Individual Culture
Organizational culture vitally and inseparably relates to individual culture
(Handy, 1991). As to Cornwall and Perlman (1998), a culture is an organization’s reality, and culture shapes all that goes on within an organization. It is reflected in an organization’s philosophies, rules, norms, values, climates, symbols, heroes, and almost everything its members do. A different group of people has a different way of life and different ways to give meaning to things and different values and behaviors.
Therefore, organizational culture is dictated by the values, beliefs, behaviors, and norms which permeate organization members and are expressed through the words and behaviors of each member in organization. Culture reveals organizational life,

both organization and individual sides, and creates particular patterns or ways of its identity. As Ott (1989) states, “It functions as an organizational control mechanism, informally approvin g or prohibiting behaviors” (p.50). Schein (2004) suggested that the often hidden and largely unquestioned assumptions and beliefs held by members of the organization that guide their behavior constitute the core definition of culture: a pattern of basic assumptions that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Organizational culture expresses the ideas and overall values that define an organization and has a significant and long-lasting influence on its members (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2007).
Organizations are selecting people whose core needs or highest priorities can be met. In turn, individuals have to know what most matters to them at the time, and the conditions in which they're most likely to flourish. They must know what their cultures are as well as understand under what conditions of work they can be most successful. Therefore, Neece (in Hardy and Taylor, 2005) suggested that individuals are necessary to evaluate and understand their individual cultures, from their standpoints. Although individuals cannot examine the task situation or organizational environment that may suit their satisfaction in advance, they should seek an organization of which the same value and behavior pattern is most appropriate for them. In the selection process, when recruiters or managers say that a candidate
‘fits’ or ‘doesn’t fit’ to explain why a candidate should be offered a job or not offered one, what interviewers are really saying is the candidate fits or doesn't fit into the organizational culture
(Bardwick, 1998; Neece, in Hardy and Taylor, 2005).
4.2 Cultural-fit Management

At present, successful organizations do not select people only on work-based consideration of "ability" as a basis, but also focus on “best-fit” to ensure consistency in both organizational culture and individual culture. Experts in human resources realize that culture should be a major determining factor in selecting, hiring, and even firing employees (Cornwall and Perlman, 1990), given that an organization is looking for those who fit well with the organizational norms and culture. Manager needs to know what an organization’s true culture is, the one that the logic of the work demands, or the one that exists in the existing complex of the individuals and their cultures (Handy, 1991). Cultural fit, which is at the heart of employee satisfaction and organizational success, requires that people and organizations really know what they're like and what they want to become.
There are no ‘best organizations’ or ‘best employees’. There's no one size that fits all. Instead, there's a best cultural fit, a match between an individual's values, priorities, and behaviors and those of an organization, which also decreases conflict between organizations and individuals (Bardwick, 1998). Best cultural fit, compatibility between what the organization requires and the employee desires, leads to high motivation, comfort, and success. On the contrary, bad cultural fit leads to discomfort, high stress, and failure. A better cultural fit means a person will be happier on the job, will want to stay, and will have greater job satisfaction and commitment (Johns and Saks, 2005).
4.3 Theory of Cultural Propriety
Charles Handy (1991) proposed the concept of cultural- fit management in the
‘Theory of Cultural Propriety’, which holds that what matters is getting the right culture in the right place for the right purpose. The key concept emphasized in
Ha ndy’s theory is congruence between organizational culture and individual culture.
He illustrated his concept by symbolic analogies of four ancient Greek gods to

represent four different cultures that exist in organizations. The Greeks chose their gods to share the values and interests which they represented. Thus, Handy categorized organizational culture into four aspects follow to characteristics, duties, roles, emotions, satisfaction, and competency of each god. Those are: (1) Club
Culture, ruled by Zeus; the dynamic entrepreneur, characterized by speed of decision, rapid, and intuitive communication, (2) Role Culture, ruled by Apollo; god of order and bureaucracy which based on definition of the jobs to be done, (3) Task
Culture, ruled by Athena; goddess of craftsmanship, recognizes only expertise as the basis of power and influence, and (4) Existential Culture, ruled by Dionysus; the god preferred by artists and professionals who owe little or no allegiance to a boss.
Handy (1991) suggested that each culture worked on quite different assumptions about the basis of power and influence, what motivated people, how they thought and learned, and how things could be changed. These assumptions resulted in quite different styles of management, structures, procedures, leaders, motivation factors, and reward systems. Each would work well in certain situations, but get the wrong god in the wrong place and there would be trouble. There is no one best way to manage and there is no best culture, but only cultural fit for each organization and individual. As to Handy, ‘the management of organizations is not a precise science, but more of a creative and political process, owing much to the prevailing culture and tradition in that place at that time’ (Handy, 1991; p.9).
4.4 Professional Bureaucracy Organization
As Mintzberg (1983: 190) proposed, the Professional Bureaucracy relies for coordination on the standardization of skill and its associated design parameter, training and indoctrination. Administration Court is designed in this structure pattern.
Its component is the judges and attorneys represented in professional culture, and

the administrators existed in role culture, analyzed by Handy’s theory. Thus, in
Professional Bureaucracy organization, there are mixed cultures between existential culture and role culture that work is highly specialized in the horizontal dimension, but enlarged in the vertical one.
5. Methodology
The research methodology used in this study is a mixed method of both qualitative and quantitative methods and conducted by analyzing academic works as well as a field survey. The sampling unit, selected by the way of a multistagesampling technique, was the “Administrative Court”, a public organization of judicial institute. The target population were the ‘operating core’ and ‘supporting staff’ officials in this sampling unit.
5.1 Selection of Sampling Unit
The Administrative Court officials in Thailand was the target grouped of this research. The total number of 620 questionnaires were mailed and directed to targeted individual of the Administrative Court in 10 provinces. The respondents are the 119 officials in the role of ‘operating core’ and the 430 officials in the role of
‘supporting staff’. In addition, 93 individuals from those informants were purposively drawn and interviewed. Both the interview schedule and the questionnaire were modified from Handy’s test of cultural-fit to be more relevant to the Thai context and more exclusive to expand and separate each cultural dimension.
5.2 Instrumentation
A Test.
First, a test was designed for measuring the perceptions of the survey population, as a member of organization, in both organizational and individual culture. It demonstrated the level of congruence or conflict between organizational and individual perceived culture of ‘operating core’ and ‘supporting staff’ subjects in

Administration Court
. The test, modified from Handy’s test and constructed from principle concept of Handy’s theory, has 15 headings including set of values, beliefs, behavior patterns in organization. It was specifically used to verify cultural-fit in 15 dimensions. The test headings are: (1) A good boss, (2) A good subordinate, (3)
First priority of good member, (4) People who work well in organization, (5) The way organization treats the individual, (6) By which way people are influenced, (7) Power of control, (8) The basis of task assignment, (9) Competition, (10) Motivation of work,
(11) Type of work, (12) Way of thinking and learning, (13) Communication, (14)
Decision-making, and (15) Recruitment and selection. If the organizational perceived culture and individual perceived culture of the target population is mostly fit well in a sum total of (a) clause there will be congruent on Club culture between organization and individual. The cultural-fit in a sum total of (b) clause means that Role culture exists, while the cultural-fit in a sum total of (c) clause expresses cultural congruence on Task culture, and the cultural-fit in a sum total of (d) clause confirms to cultural congruence on Existential culture.
The reliability of the test was ensured by examining two criteria: (1) internal consistency; the test was assessed its consistency of results across items by
Cronbach’s alpha testing, analyzed by computer analysis, and proceeded the resulting correlations. The figure showed several of the split-half estimates for the 15 items and lists them as SH with a subscript . Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the test is 0.85. This
Cronbach’s alpha values represent the internal consistency of the items, and correlation coefficients show a general description about the relationships across the constructs and sub-constructs among the proposed variables (Siegel, 2000; Howell, 2007). (2) sensitivity; the test has a discriminatory power to categorize and significantly exclude four different cultures.

Interviews.
Secondly, an in-depth interview was designed for exploring the causes of the congruence or conflict between organizational and individual culture. It is the best method to probe the real opinion of the chosen subjects selected by a purposive sampling method. Data collected via these interviews is intended to explain the cultural-fit or conflict between organizational and individuals. The indepth interview was based on conceptual structure, from word association method, relating to the cumulative causes of the cultural-fit. The survey subjects were requested to define 6 words based on the following questions: (1) what is the meaning of individual’
? (2) How do they measure their
‘work achievement’
? (3)
What are the factors that lead to their ‘satisfaction of work’ ? (4) What are the causes of their
‘work stresses’
? (5) What
‘type of work’
they do? And (6) what are their
‘motivation factors’ ?
6. Results
After data collecting, from January 2011 to April 2011, the findings are supported by empirical evidences involved with relevant theories and responded to those four issues:
6.1 cultural-fit of judicial Institute;
Data collected by the test instrument indicates the results of cultural fit in supporting staff group as illustrated in Table 2. There were 155 out of 430 respondents (36.0%) who perceived that their organizational and individual culture is fit in Role cultur e, following as in Handy’s theory. The remaining subjects show a deviant or a mix of incongruent cultures between organizational and individual cultures.
Table 2.

Cultural-Fit between organizational and individual perceived culture in ‘supporting staff ’ group (n=430)
Sampling Unit/
Target population
Administration
Court
/ Supporting
Staff
Culture
Role
(Apollo)
Perception of Cultural – fit
(n)
=430
(%)
=100
Perception culture
of
Organizational
Perception of
Individual culture
Role/Role (155) 36.0 Role (155) Role (155)
Club/Club (15)
Club/Role
Club/Task
(37)
(39)
Club/Existential (2)
Role/Club (14)
Role/Task (59)
Role/ Existential (10)
Task/Club (4)
Task/Role (29)
3.5
8.6
9.1
0.5
3.3
13.7
2.3
0.9
6.7
Club (15)
Club
Club
Club
(37)
(39)
(2)
Role (14)
Role (59)
Role (10)
Task (4)
Task (29)
Club (15)
Role (37)
Task (39)
Existential (2)
Club (14)
Task (59)
Existential (10)
Club (4)
Role (29)
Task/Task (25)
Task/ Existential (7)
Existential/Club (3)
Existential/Role (15)
5.8
1.6
0.7
3.5
Task (25)
Task (7)
Existential (3)
Existential (15)
Task (25)
Existential (7)
Club (3)
Role (15)
Existential/Task(7) 1.6 Existential (7) Task (7)
Existential/Existential (9) 2.1 Existential (9) Existential (9)
After data summarizing, the process of hypothesis testing of proportion was used by Non- parametric method. The Mcnemar Test was employed to verify whether the proportion of supporting staffs ’ perceptions, on their organizational and individual culture, is fit on or deviant from Role culture. The results of statistical test are illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3.
Respondent Perceptions from testing of proportion by Mcnemar test in
‘supporting staff ’ group (n=430)
Perception of
Role Culture on
Organization side
Fit Culture
Mismatched Culture
Total
Perception of
Role Culture on
Individual side
Fit
Culture
155
81
236
Mismatched
Culture
83
111
194
Total
238
192
430
Chisquare value
.006
Chisquare prob
.938

Next data which were collected by the test instrument indicates the results of cultural fit in operating core group as illustrated in Table 4. There were 30 out of 119 respondents (25.2%) who perceived that their organizational and individual culture is fit in Existential culture. The remaining subjects show a deviant or a mix of incongruent cultures between organizational and individual cultures.
Table 4.
Cultural-Fit between organizational and individual perceived culture in ‘operating core’ group (n=119)
Sampling Unit/
Target population
Administration
Court
/ Operating
Core
Culture
Exis- tential
(Dionysus)
Perception of Cultural – fit
(n)
=119
(%)
=100
Existential/Existential
(30)
Club/Club (5)
Club/Role (4)
Club/Task (5)
Club/Existential (3)
Role/Club (2)
Role/Role (7)
Role/Task (8)
Role/ Existential (23)
Task/Club (2)
Task/Role (3)
Task/Task (3)
Task/ Existential (4)
Existential/Club (4)
Existential/Role (7)
Existential/Task (9)
Perception of
Organizational culture
25.2
4.2
3.4
4.2
2.5
1.7
Existential
(30)
Club (5)
Club (4)
Club (5)
Club (3)
Role (2)
5.9
6.7
19.3
1.7
2.5
2.5
Role (7)
Role (8)
Role (23)
Task (2)
Task (3)
Task (3)
3.4 Task (4)
3.4 Existential (4)
5.9 Existential (7)
7.5 Existential (9)
Perception of
Individual culture
Existential
(30)
Club (5)
Role (4)
Task (5)
Existential (3)
Club (2)
Role (7)
Task (8)
Existential (23)
Club (2)
Role (3)
Task (3)
Existential (4)
Club (4)
Role (7)
Task (9)
After data summarizing, the process of hypothesis testing of proportion was used by Non- parametric method. The Mcnemar Test was employed to verify whether the proportion of operating cores ’ perceptions, on their organizational and individual culture, is fit on or deviant from Existential culture. The results of statistical test are illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5.

Respondent Perceptions from testing of proportion by Mcnemar test in ‘operating core’ group (n=119)
Perception of
Role Culture on
Organization side
Perception of
Role Culture on
Individual side Total
Chisquare value
1.620
Chisquare prob
.203
Fit Culture
Mismatched Culture
Total
Fit
Culture
30
30
60
Mismatched
Culture
20
39
59
50
69
119
The responses indicated that cultural-fit of ‘mixed culture between Existential and Role Culture ’ existed in the Administrative Court, Thailand as proposed in
Handy’s theory. The Mcnemar Test, Non-parametric method, was employed to verify the hypothesis by testing of proportion. The result, tested by Chi-square value at significant level 0.05, is that value ratio of cultural-fit between organizational and individual perceived culture of both officials in the role of ‘operating core’ and of those in the role of ‘supporting staff. The proportion of cultural-fit of ‘operating core’ officials only increased from 50 to 60 and p > 0 .
05 (.203), strongly supports to the test model. Most of 119 operating core officials perceived their cultural-fit, between organizational and individual cultures, on
‘Existential (Dionysus)’ culture. On the others, the proportion of cultural-fit of ‘supporting staff’ officials slightly decreased from 238 to 236 and p > 0 .
05 (.938), very strong supports to the test model. Most of
430 ‘supporting staff’ officials perceived their cultural-fit, between organizational and individual cultures, on ‘Role (Apollo)’ culture. The principle culture of judicial Institute is mixed culture between Existential and Role Culture, and the subordinate one is
Club culture.
6.2 key success factors leading to cultural-fit in judicial Institute;

The researcher found eight key success factors which related to the major attributes of
‘Existential’ and ‘Role’ culture criteria described in Handy’s theory.
Those are a combination of five key success factors on organizational side and three key success factors on individual one making up cultural-fit disparity. In Existential culture, five key success factors on organizational side accompanying with their right conditions are: 1) leader - role of innovator, 2) management - by consent, 3) work type - asterisk task, 4) work achievement - particular matter, and 5) performance indicator - fulfillment, individual growth, and three key success factors on individual side with their right conditions are: 1) motivation factor - growth, autonomy 2) needs
(motive) for actualization, and 3) work satisfaction - security, power from professional
Autonomy. But in Role culture, five key success factors on organizational side accompanying with their right conditions are: 1) leader - role of monitor, 2) manage- ment - by authority, 3) work type - steady-state task, 4) work achievement - efficiency, and 5) performance indicator - regularity of work and completeness, and three key success factors on individual side with their right conditions are: 1) motivation factor - responsibility and progress, 2) needs (motive) for power and status, and 3) work satisfaction - security, power from role, authorization, higher position. The cultural-fit in different culture is owing to the right conditions of those eight key success factors.
Table 6.
Comparative key success factors and conditions of cultural fit in mixed culture between Role and Existential Culture
Role Culture (Apollo)
Cultural-fit for supporting staff
Key success factor Right conditions
Existential Culture (Dionysus)
Cultural-fit for operating core
Right conditions

Leader Monitor (by formal role)
Motivation factor Responsibility, Progress
Needs
Work type
Power, Status
Steady-state task
Work satisfaction
Self-actualization, Growth
Autonomy
Asterisk (from specification)
Security, Power from role, Power from autonomy
Achievement
Indicators
Management
Efficiency
Regularity, Completeness
By authority
Innovator (by professionalism)
Particular matter
Innovative work / fulfillment
By consent
Table 6 reveals the eight key success factors of cultural-fit between organization and individual in Role (Apollol) culture compared with Existential
(Dionysus) culture. The cultural-fit in different cultures between the group of operating core, judges and attorneys, and the group of supporting staff is owing to the right conditions of those eight key success factors.
6.3 factors causing incongruent culture in judicial Institute;
The respondents also mentioned the factors that caused incongruence between organization and individual perceived culture. Those factors were not in their right conditions and ineffectively led to mismatched culture and conflict between organization and individual. They are summarized and illustrated on Table 7.
Table 7.
Factors causing incongruence culture
Sampling Unit Factors Negative Effects
Administrative
Court
Management Require for teamwork, merit system
Work achievement Be unattainable to goal of professional work
Work satisfaction Overload and get bored, Not progress in career path
Due to organizational context, the factors causing mismatched or incongruent culture are different between the perceptions of ‘operating core’ officials and those of
‘supporting staff’ officials in Administrative Court, Thailand. In a whole picture, the

researcher discovered similar factors but different degree that caused incongruent culture of both official groups. They were the factors of: 1) management , 2) work achievement , and 3) work satisfaction . In addition, another one factor causing incongruent culture in the perceptions of ‘operating core’ officials is ‘leader’
factor while other factors causing incongruent culture in the perceptions of ‘supporting staff’ officials are ‘performance indicator’ and ‘motivation’ factors. The results reveal that some parts of both official groups perceived that individual or organizational culture is ‘Club’ culture. This indicates a strong implication of a political culture and nepotism system, contaminated with ‘Existential’ and ‘Role’ culture, which causes a deviation of cultural-fit management in Administrative Court. The results also revealed that officials in both group had needs for self- esteem, self-actualization and required a participative style of management and merit system. They also perceived that achievement of work was unattainable to its goal and work type was boring, overloaded, and repetitious. In addition, collected data also revealed that the motivation factor was affected. The officials felt that they didn’t have a progress of work which they deserved on their career path, thus, their satisfaction of work was unfulfilled.
6.4 specific motivating factors appropriated with individual culture in judicial Institute;
Motivating factors are the result of internal instincts in each employee, and leads to motivation rather than movement. If the ‘operating core’ officials well suit with individual desirability and satisfaction in ‘Existential’ culture: freedom, actualization, individual growth and power from autonomy, the proportion of incongruent culture will decrease.
While the ‘supporting staff’ officials will perceive congruence in ‘Role’ culture if they well suit with desirability and satisfaction of

security of work, higher position and status, work progress, and power from authority. Those specific motivating factors appropriated with individual culture in judicial Institute can decrease conflict between organization and individual and lead to achievement for both parties.
7. Conclusions and Recommendation for Further Research
The article postulates that there is sufficient evidence to give support to both
Handy and Herzberg theories and to conclude that organizational culture of judicial
Institute is mixed up with ‘Existential’ and ‘Role’ culture. Previous studies on cultural- fit management aligned with the findings of this study are those researches of
Bardwick (2001), Bolman and Deal (2003), and Jittaruttha (2009, 2010). The extent of congruency between the values and norms of the organization and individual will proceed cultural-fit if determinant factors of culture are matched with their right conditions. They also suggest that public organizations will attain to their needs and vision, and public management will be efficient if determinant factors of each culture are properly managed. The most important thing judicial organization leaders should aware is that they need a mix of cultures to carry out their different tasks, but each culture has to understand and respect the ways of the others.
7.1
Recommendations for further research
Organizations that do not change their perspective on cultural management only fade away and others grow up to take their place (Handy, 1991; p.238), They are unable to contemplate a future different from all that they have been used to. The interesting points for further research are recommended as follows:
Cultural Change: change the clothes or change person to fit the clothes?
Organization as a community of suitable knowledge worker, not a property.

Balancing your culture: change or decay?
8.
Contributions to New Knowledge in HRD
The recommendations give contribution to new knowledge in HRD, which suggest that both organization and individuals will attain their needs if determinant factors of each culture are matched with their right conditions. Both organization and individual need to be aware of the correct understanding in their own cultures, thus individuals are able to consider and find organizations where the culture and their values can coexist. Organizational culture is now comprehended not only from organizational side but from the individual dimension as well. Individuals in professional machine bureaucracy organization suit for both existential and role culture and require specific motivation factors, depending on their role of ‘operating core’ or ‘supporting staff’. Thus, it is not quite easy to well manage mixed organizational culture if executives do not have insightful perspective on cultural-fit management or different cultural components. While existential culture is providing most beneficial contribution to our progress world by those irrational and professional
Dionysian, role culture is providing accuracy with most reasonable and predictable regularity by those rational and regulated Apollo. Organization of consent and of authority find it hard to insist that all work is done on their premises. Executives need to be aware of making cultural balance in order to strike organization achievement or having a ‘clash culture’ situation in their organizations.
References
Bardwick, J. M.
(1998).
In praise of good business: How optimizing risk rewards both your bottom line and your people. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Blake, R. R. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict in industry.
Houston, TX: Gulf.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cochran, W. G. (3 rd .ed.) (1977). Sampling techniques.
New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Cornwall, J. R. & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship.
Homewood,
IL: Irwin.
Denhardt, J. V. and Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not
steering. London: M.E.Sharpe.
__________. (2 nd ed.). (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Handy, C. B. (3 rd ed.). (1991). Gods of management. Great Britain: Business Books.
Hardy, J. and Taylor, D. (2005). Monster careers: How to land the job of your life.
London: Penguin.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman B. B. (1993). The motivation to work.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Howell, D. C. (6 th ed.). (2007). Statistical methods for psychology . Belmont, CA:
Thomson- Wadsworth.
Hy, L.X. and Loevinger, J. (2 nd ed.). (1996). Measuring ego development.
New
Jersey, NJ.: Lawrence Eribaum.
Jittaruttha, C. (2009). “Mismatch between organizational and individual perceived culture: An exploratory case study of professional organization in Tha iland.”
Proceeding paper, the 8th International Conference of the Academy of HRD
(Asia Chapter) and 1st International Conference of the Academy of HRD
(MENA Chapter), Bahrain: Manama, December 12-15, 2009.
__________ . (2010). “Organizational culture and determinant factors of Royal Thai

Army: An exploratory case study of cultural aspect of public m anagement.”
Proceeding paper, the 14th Annual Conference of the International Research
Society for Public Management (IRSPM), Switzerland: Berne, April 07 – 09,
2010.
Johns, G. & Saks, A. M. (6 th ed.). (2005). Organizational behaviour: Understanding and managing life at work. New York, NY: Prentice - Hall.
Likert, R. (1961).
New patterns of management.
New York: McGraw - Hill.
Maccoby, M. (1976). The gamesman. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice - Hall.
Murray, H. A., (1971). Thematic apperception test. By Henry A. Murray and the staff of the Harvard Psychological Clinic, S.l.: S.N.
Ott, J. S. (1 st ed.). (1989). The organizational culture perspective.
Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Schein, E. (3rd ed.). (2004). Organizational culture and leadership.
San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Siegel, A. F. (4 th ed.). (2000). Practical business statistics . Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28 , 339-358.
Stewart, R. (1986). The reality of organizations. London: Pan.
Stewart, T. A. (2002). The wealth of knowledge.
London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.