Keywords

Organization Culture, University, Organization, Employees, Workplace Culture, Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ).

Introduction

Organization Culture is an important component which holds the organization together.Organizational culture is the core competency for an organization that influences the effectiveness or performance of the individuals, the groups and the whole organization. Organization Culture guides the employee behavior, corporate communication, helps in orientation of new employees. The employees cultivate and share the organization goals and values to new employees. These shared values guide employees in maintaining inter personal relations, understanding the work procedures and systems, developing skills for problem solving and decision making in various activities of the university. Kuh & Whitt (1988), defined university culture as collective mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide behaviour of individuals and group. Salonda (2008) described university culture as a distinct type of organizational culture whose values and beliefs and basic assumptions are held by all universities. Further, Fletcher & Jones (1992) explained that a problematic organizational culture can lead to organization problems such as poor performance of employees, poor work quality, low levels of employee loyalty and commitment to the organization, high levels of absenteeism, high employee turnover rate. It can also create job dissatisfaction among employees and job stress. Blunt (1991); George & Jones (1996) and Zakaria (1997) argued that all organizations function within a specific culture, and that managers and other practitioners have to understand their cultural settings if their organizations are to perform effectively. According to Peters (1982) success of the organization depends on the radiance or excellence of the culture.Researchers has been studying organizational culture to create effective and efficient organizations in today’s competitive environment. Folch & Ion (2009) stated that the analysis of a university’s organizational culture is important in order to bring improvement in behavior of people in organizations. The results from this study will be useful for educational institutions and university policy makers to increase the efficiency of organizational processes and systems.

Objectives

1. To examine the prevailing organizational culture in Princess Nourahbint Abdulrahman University using Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ).

2. To identify the significant factors that influences the organization culture of the university.

3. To suggest interventions this can improve the organization culture in Princess Nourahbint Abdulrahman University.

Literature Review

Concept of Organization Culture

Organizational culture can be described as a set of beliefs, behaviors, artifacts, symbols, practices and values. Smircich (1983) explained Culture as an environment in which behaviours, institutions and social engagements take place. Smircich (1983) stated that organisations can be understood as a collection of cultures (Young, 1989; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985; Kunda, 1995; Ogbonna & Harris, 2015); this view favors the assumption that culture is something an organisation “is” and not what organization has. Gjuraj (2013) considered culture to be a tangible or intangible environment in which a group of people live and work together.

Types of Organization Culture

Pareek (1983) introduced the OCTAPACE model. He explained this model can be used to identify the extent to which values can be promoted in the organization. These values include openness, confrontation, trust, authenticity, pro-activity, autonomy, collaboration and experimentation. Cameron (1985) suggested that there is no one best type of culture rather different culture types are related to higher levels of performance on different effectiveness dimensions. Nystrom & Starbuck (1984) conducted a survey of 375 university lecturers from eight public universities in Saudi Arabia found that employees in strong cultures tended to express greater organizational commitment as well as higher job satisfaction. McNay (1995) developed a model to describe organizational culture of higher education institutions. His model highlighted dimensions: intensity of control and the focus on policy and strategy. Deal & Kennedy (2008) explained that a strong culture is a system of rules that spells out how people should behave. An organization with a strong culture has common values and codes of conduct for its employees, which helps them to accomplish their missions and goals. Kezar & Eckel (2002) explained the myths and rituals of university stakeholders. They believed that university culture is different from other types of institutions. Bartell (2003) explained the need of strong culture as it improves the quality of decision making and problem solving. A strong culture permits debate and discussion, alternative views and strategies. Prajogo & McDermott (2011) found that the type of culture impacts the organization performance. Studies by Kotter & Heskett (1992); Sørensen (2002) cited in Prajogo & McDermott (2011) focused on two major dimensions of culture: content and strength of culture.They concluded that both are important factors for achieving a high level of performance. Content signifies the types of values and behaviors held by employees, and strength means depth of those behaviors embedded among the employees.

Significance of Assessment of Organization Culture to Individuals

Culture influences individual’s attitudes such as commitment, motivation, morale, and satisfaction. Waterman & Peters (1982) claim that OC has a powerful impact on individual behaviour as well as performance and effectiveness. Wallach (1983) suggested that organization’s culture affects the individual job performance, job satisfaction, propensity to remain with the organization, and job involvement. Harris & Mossholder (1996) stated that organizational culture acts as a foundation that influences other factors of human resource management. Yusof & Juhary (2000) confirmed that organizational culture influences the thought, feeling, communication and performance in the organization. Studies of McKinnon et al. (2003) concluded that organizational culture has been an important theme in management and business research for the past few decades due to its potential impact on commitment, loyalty, and intent to turnover and job satisfaction. Lok & Crawford (2003) organizational culture can influence how people in an organization set personal and professional goals, perform tasks and administer resources to achieve them. Jones et al. (2005) demonstrated that organizational culture enables employees to create, acquire, share and manage knowledge. Engman & Thörnlund (2008) the culture of an organization, influences the daily activities at work and motivates the company's work.

Significance of Assessment of Organization Culture to Organizations

Waterman & Peters (1982) and Kotter & Heskett (1992) reported a significant link between a particular type of strong culture and superior financial performance. Cameron & Quinn (2011) investigated the relationship among three dimensions of organizational culture; congruence, strength and organizational effectiveness. Research by Ritchie & Sabourin (2001) shows that organizational culture influences productivity, effectiveness, performance, commitment, self confidence, ethical behavior and job satisfaction. Kezar & Eckel (2002) stated that the organization culture is associated with effectiveness. Lund (2003) concluded that strong organizational culture increases job satisfaction, efficiency, organization performance. Gray et al. (2003) stated that organizational culture is used as a powerful tool to quantify the way a business functions. Aidla & Vadi (2007) stated that Organizational culture as an important factor that influences the performance of an organization. Fralinger & Olson (2007) stated that the most successful campus cultures support both group cooperation and individual achievement. Karatepe & Kilic (2007) organizational culture has the ability to rearrange everyday functioning of the organization in order to adapt to changing conditions. Berson et al. (2008) explained the association between work culture and growth in sales and overall profits. According to Deal & Kennedy's (1988) approach, strong culture can have a major impact on the success of the business Karatepe & Kilic (2007) describes eight effects organizational culture has on performance: i) Communication effect, ii) Decision making effect, iii) Trust effect, iv) Stress effect, v) Conflict effect, vi) Alienation effect, vii) Motivation effect, viii) Organizational change effect. Kutanis et al. (2012) conducted a study on full time employees of a five star hotel chain.They found that organizational culture affects the organizational performance, customers, employees and environment.

How to Measure Organization Culture

According to Schein (1984), the strength of culture can be defined in terms of the stability of group membership and the intensity of shared experience of the group. An organization with stable group members will represent a strong culture however an organization with unstable group members will display a week culture. Cameron & Ettington (1988) stated that a strong culture is more effective and is associated with organizational excellence. Gordon & DiTomaso (1992) found that a strong culture was predictive of short-term company performance. In a study carried out for developing a model for the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance, Marcoulides & Heck (1993) and Uzun (2007) concluded that organizational culture variables are determinants in organizational performance. Sporn (1999 & 2001) identified two types of university organizational cultures: strong and weak. Ribière & Sitar (2003) stated that Organizational culture is a feature of an organization, that provides direction to employees regarding their daily working relationships and guides them on how to behave and communicate within the organization. Anti? & Ceri? (2008) focused on different ways to assess the university culture. According to Anti? & Ceri? (2008) Strong university culture is characterized by shared values, strong norms of behavior and willingness of faculty to obey these norms. In contrast, weak culture is characterized by disagreement about main values, absence of norms and violation of written and unwritten norms of university. de Hilal et al. (2009) concluded that culture is a key variable that affects performance. Work culture helps to determine how employees are organized and howthey operate within the structure. From the review it can be concluded that organization culture affects individual behavior and overall performance, hence this research can be useful for university administrators and policy makers to modify the individual and group behavior and make organization effective.

Methodology

The main purpose of this descriptive research was to find out prevailing organizational culture of Princess Nourahbint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh and to suggest the course of actions for improving the organizational culture. This study implemented a survey to find out prevailing culture of PNU University by using the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire OCAQ, based on the work of Dr. Talcott Parsons, a sociologist at Harvard. This instrument assessed five organization functions managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork, building a strong culture and customer orientation. Thirty questions including demographic variables were used. The Questionnaire Included five different scales: Scale I of the OCAQ included total six items. The objective of this scale was to examine the degree to which respondents see the organization as effective in adapting to and managing change.Scale II of the OCAQ included total six items. The objective of this scale was to identify the degree to which the organization is effective in achieving goals. OCAQ Scale III included total six items. The objective of this scale was to assesses the extent to which an organization is effective in coordinating the work of individuals and groups.Scale IV of the OCAQ included total six items.The objective of this scale was to assesses the extent to which organizational activities are directed towards identifying and meeting the needs and goals of clients and customers.Scale V of the OCAQ included total five items. The objective of this scale was to assess the strength of the organization's culture, asking respondents to report on the extent to which people agree on values. Reliability tests were conducted to test the reliability of each scale. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to calculate the internal consistency of the 30 factors of five scales.

The alpha values are presented in Table 8.Reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) greater than.7 is normally acceptable. The study was applied to 819 employees to determine the organizational culture of the PNU University. The data was collected during 2020 educational semester. Randomly selected 819 members participated in the study. The study targeted employees of PNU in different work levels (high, middle, and low) and across several departments. It also targeted different employees who seemed to have different individual characteristics (e.g. age, gender, and work experience.).Descriptive statistics of gender, age, marital status, Qualification, Job field, experience, Managerial level/academic rank/were run to examine representativeness of the sample of this study.Examination of Suitability of Data and Criteria for factoranalysis was checked with the following study. Thompson (2004) advised that, for factor analysis, the ratio between the number of participants (N) and the number of measured variables (p) should be at least 3:1 (N:p). In this study, having the sample size of 819(N=819) and number of measured variables (p) was 30. The ratio approximately 27:3, such requirements were deemed met. Factor analysis and correlational analysis, were employed in this research. According to Tabachnick & Fidell (2013), correlation coefficients would be more reliably estimated when having a sample size of at least 300. The analysis was conducted in the following order: First, factor analysis was done to decide clean data and best-related items for analyses. This analysis aimed to delete unrelated items in the questionnaire. Then, such factors were used in the correlational analysis. Second, the correlational analysis was conducted to preliminarily examine the relationship between the variables. Rotation is used in factor analysis to accommodate the correlations between extracted factors. Regarding the method of rotation, the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization was used because this method produces factors which contain items that are well correlated to each other. This method has been specially used as a common method in social sciences which involves examination of human behaviours, as in the present study, Rotation converged in 7 iterations. According to Tabachnick & Fidell (2013), the number of rotation times will maximise the opportunities of loading well-connected variables together. Regarding the criteria for removing a variable, any variable which has a small factor loading of below 0.4 was removed. Also, any variable that had cross loadings with other variables was carefullyexamined to decide case by case to determine if it needs removing. The above decisions have been made thoroughly for all principal axis factoring analyses in this study.Factor analysis was undertaken (using SPSS 25 version) to extract factors of Organization Culture. Bartlett’s test of spherecity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was computed. The measure of sampling adequacy (KMO=0.967) was appropriate, implying that the principal component factor is a reliable tool in a given situation.

Hypothesis

H0 There is no correlation between five dimensions of Organization Culture.

H1 There exists a significant correlation between five dimensions of Organization Culture.

Results and Discussion

Demographic and Psychographic Characteristics

Interpretation: Among the total 819 respondents, 97 percent were female and 3 percent were male (Table 1).

Table 1 Gender
Gender	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Female	797	97	97.3	97.3
Male	22	2.7	2.7	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Interpretation: 6 percent were in 20-30 year age group, 46 percent in 30-40 year age group, 39 percent in 40-50 year age group, and 9 percent in 50-60 age groups (Table 2).

Table 2 Age
Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
2	45	5.5	5.5
3	379	46.3	51.9
3	1	0.1	5.6
4	318	38.8	90.7
5	76	9.3	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Interpretation: In addition, 77 percent were married, 2 percent were widow, 14 percent were single and 7 percent were divorced (Table 3). Interpretation: The respondents were from varied educational background such that 6 percent were Secondary School passes out, 40 percent were Diploma Holders, 16 percent were BA and 38 percent hold masters degree (Table 3).

Table 3 Marital Status
Marital Status	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Married	630	76.9	76.9	76.9
Widow	14	1.7	1.7	78.6
Single	120	14.7	14.7	93.3
Divorced	55	6.7	6.7	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Interpretation In addition respondents were from various Job fields including, 47 percent was Academic Staff, 49 percent was Administrative staff, 1 percent was from health staff whereas 2 percent was technical Staff and others were less than 1 percent (Table 4). Tables 5-8 illustrates the frequency of variables Job Field, Current Job, Years of Experience, Managerial Level and respondent’s affiliated college respectively.

Table 4 Qualification
Qualification	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Secondary School	46	5.6	5.6	5.6
Diploma	329	40.2	40.2	45.8
BA	128	15.6	15.6	61.4
Master	316	38.6	38.6	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Table 5 Job Field
	Designation	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid		1	0.1	0.1	0.1
	Academic staff	388	47.4	47.4	47.5
	Administrative	401	49.0	49.0	96.5
	Health staff	8	1.0	1.0	97.4
	Other	5	.6	.6	98.0
	Technical staff	16	2.0	2.0	100.0
	Total	819	100.0	100.0

Table 6 Experience
Years of experience	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	0.1	0.1	0.1
20 Years and Over	164	20.0	20.0	20.1
Less than one year	13	1.6	1.6	21.7
More than 10 years but less than 15 years	139	17.0	17.0	38.7
More than 15 years but less than 20 years	147	17.9	17.9	56.7
More than 3 years but less than 5 years	44	5.4	5.4	62.0
More than 5 years, but less than 10 years	275	33.6	33.6	95.6
More than a year, but less than 3 years	36	4.4	4.4	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Table 7 Managerial Level
Managerial Level	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Administration manager	123	15.0	15.0	15.0
Administrative	2	0.2	0.2	15.3
College of Community services	1	0.1	0.1	15.4
Consultant	1	0.1	0.1	15.5
Dean	8	1.0	1.0	16.5
Dean Assistant	1	0.1	0.1	16.6
Deputy Assistant	1	0.1	0.1	16.7
Deputy Director	1	0.1	0.1	16.8
Director of the Graduate Program, Department of Biology	1	0.1	0.1	17.0
Employee	304	37.1	37.1	54.1
Employee?????	1	1	1	54.2
Head of department	36	4.4	4.4	58.6
Head of the Communication Committee	1	.1	.1	58.7
Manager	1	.1	.1	58.9
Office manager	4	.5	.5	59.3
Professor ????	1	1	1	59.5
Research Assistant	1	.1	.1	59.6
secretary	3	.4	.4	60.0
secretary ???	1	1	1	60.1
Staff Member	292	35.7	35.7	95.7
Technical job??????	1	.1	.1	95.8
Vice Dean in college or Deanship	32	3.9	3.9	99.8
?????	1	.1	.1	99.9
????????????Employee??	1	.1	.1	100.0
Total	819	100.0	100.0

Table 8 Reliability Test
Cronbach's Alpha	No of items
0.767	30

Interpretation: Table 9 illustrates the descriptive Statistics of the primary data. The means, SDs, number of items pertaining to the dimensions of Gender, Age, Marital Status and Qualification are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Sex	819	1	2	1.03	0.162
Age	818	2	5	3.52	0.739
Marital Status	819	1	4	1.51	0.973
Qualification	819	1	4	2.87	0.998
Valid N (listwise)	818

Interpretation: Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests the hypothesis that correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that variables are unrelated and therefore unsuitable for structure detection. Small values (less than 0.05) of the significance level indicate that a factor analysis may be useful for current data. In the present analysis as the significance level is found to be 0.00 clearly indicates that factor analysis is useful for analysis. If the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy has High values (close to 1.0) generally indicate that a factor analysis may be useful with the following data. If the value is less than 0.50, the results of the factor analysis probably won't be very useful. In the present research as the KMO measure is 0.965, this can be interpretated that factor analysis would prove to be useful in this case. So, now Factor Analysis could be applied to the data (Table 10).

Table 10 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.965
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	1.342E4
	df	435
	Sig.	0.000

Interpretation: In the total variance explained table it can be seen that on applying Factor analysis 30 variables which were included in the questionnaire were reduced to only 3 factors (Table 11). The first factor depicts maximum variance of around 42%, followed by around 8% variance by second factor, followed by 4% variance depicted by third factor. This clearly shows that these 3 factors show around 54% cumulative variance and the rest 27 factors fall in the category of the remaining 47%.

Table 11 Total Variance Explained
Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings			Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	12.668	42.227	42.227	12.668	42.227	42.227	11.982	39.940	39.940
2	2.328	7.761	49.988	2.328	7.761	49.988	2.278	7.593	47.533
3	1.151	3.838	53.826	1.151	3.838	53.826	1.888	6.293	53.826
4	0.945	3.149	56.975
5	0.914	3.048	60.024
6	0.812	2.707	62.730
7	0.768	2.559	65.289
8	0.765	2.549	67.838
9	0.714	2.382	70.219
10	0.677	2.258	72.478
11	0.627	2.091	74.569
12	0.599	1.996	76.565
13	0.597	1.989	78.554
14	0.562	1.874	80.428
15	0.495	1.652	82.079
16	0.491	1.637	83.717
17	0.479	1.597	85.314
18	0.453	1.509	86.823
19	0.421	1.404	88.227
20	0.410	1.365	89.592
21	0.401	1.337	90.929
22	0.365	1.217	92.146
23	0.355	1.185	93.330
24	0.332	1.107	94.438
25	0.321	1.069	95.507
26	0.306	1.020	96.527
27	0.283	0.943	97.470
28	0.263	0.875	98.345
29	0.250	0.833	99.179
30	0.246	0.821	100.000

Extraction Method-Principle Component Analysis

Interpretation: From 30 variables, 3 factors were extracted with principle component analysis whose Eigen values are found to be greater than one. Eigen values represent variances of the factors. A flat line after 4^th variable indicates that there is a very small variation in the data (Figure 1).

Interpretation: The following table depicts the factors that were mapped to various components based on factor loadings as an element of rotated component matrix. Here the component matrix is rotated using Varimax rotation Technique which provides rotated component matrix as it helps in the better and easy interpretation of Factors (Tables 12 & 13).

Table 12 Rotated Component Matrixa
	Component
	1	2	3
People are flexible and adaptable when changes are necessary	0.609	-0.007	0.135
People feel that most change is the result of pressures imposed from higher up in the	-0.155	0.197	-0.703
People have a clear idea of why and how to proceed throughout the process of change	0.714	-0.104	0.164
Most people believe that change happens too quickly and causes too much disruption	0.023	0.324	-0.677
People believe they can influence or affect their work place through their ideas and involvement	0.598	0.044	-0.081
People believe that their concerns and anxieties during periods of change are heard and taken into considerations	0.694	0.086	0.394
Individuals and teams have clearly defined goals that relate to the goals or mission of the organization	0.747	-0.09	0.097
People and teams are often expected to reach goals which they believe are unattainable	0.686	-0.005	-0.078
Individuals and teams are measured and rewarded according to how well goals are achieved	0.73	0.098	0.284
Individuals and teams participate in defining specific goals.	0.738	-0.034	0.113
We constantly stretch our goals, to continuously improve	0.714	0.027	0.154
Individuals, teams, and functional areas often have incompatible goals.*	-0.141	0.628	-0.167
Teams often lack the authority needed to get the job effectively.*	-0.12	0.379	-0.388
People believe in teamwork, the “what’s in it for us” approach rather than “what’s in it for me	0.749	-0.205	0.064
People lack the interpersonal and technical skills they need to work effectively in teams	-0.294	0.66	-0.172
People know what is expected of them and understand their impact on other people, teams, and functions	0.739	-0.124	0.072
People believe in working together collaboratively, preferring cooperation over completion	0.673	-0.244	0.014
Managers at all levels work together as a team to achieve results for the organization.	0.762	-0.164	0.175
We give the highest priority and support to meeting the needs of clients and customers and solving their problems	0.677	-0.094	0.094
Our policies and procedures help us to provide the service our customers and clients want and needs	0.761	-0.063	0.026
People often see customer and client problems as someone else’s responsibility	-0.118	0.739	-0.054
People are always looking for new ways to better serve clients and customers	0.727	-0.143	0.028
Employees who do the best job of serving customers are more likely than other employees to be recognized or rewarded	0.678	0.13	0.364
When customers have problems with the products or services they receive, those problems are almost always resolved to their satisfaction	0.728	-0.108	0.07
People value and make use of one another’s unique strengths and different abilities	0.747	-0.166	-0.017
Everyone knows and understands our objectives and priorities	0.736	-0.178	0.166
People sometimes compromise company policy and procedures to reach operational goals	0.345	0.505	-0.073
Business decisions are most often made on the basis of facts, not just perceptions or assumptions	0.712	-0.076	0.183
Individuals obtain information about the course of work and its causes within the organization in an accurate and timely manner	0.669	0.087	0.358
Every individual in the organization strongly believes in the existence of a set of shared values about individuals' cooperation together to solve traditional business problems and achieve common goals	0.786	-0.206	0.03

Table 13 Extracted Factors
Factor	Factor Name	Variables under Factor	Factor Loadings
		Every individual in the organization strongly believes in the existence of a set of shared values about individuals' cooperation together to solve traditional business problems and achieve common goals	0.786
		Managers at all levels work together as a team to achieve results for the organization.	0.762
		Our policies and procedures help us to provide the service our customers and clients want and needs	0.761
		People believe in teamwork, the “what’s in it for us” approach rather than “what’s in it for me	0.749
		People value and make use of one another’s unique strengths and different abilities	0.747
		Individuals and teams have clearly defined goals that relate to the goals or mission of the organization	0.747
FACTOR 1	Organization Objectives	People know what is expected of them and understand their impact on other people, teams, and functions	0.739
		Individuals and teams participate in defining specific goals.	0.738
		Everyone knows and understands our objectives and priorities	0.736
		Individuals and teams are measured and rewarded according to how well goals are achieved	0.730
		When customers have problems with the products or services they receive, those problems are almost always resolved to their satisfaction	0.728
		People are always looking for new ways to better serve clients and customers	0.727
		People have a clear idea of why and how to proceed throughout the process of change	0.714
		We constantly stretch our goals, to continuously improve	0.714
		Business decisions are most often made on the basis of facts, not just perceptions or assumptions	0.712
FACTOR 2	Organization Process	People often see customer and client problems as someone else’s responsibility	0.739
		People lack the interpersonal and technical skills they need to work effectively in teams	0.660
		Individuals, teams, and functional areas often have incompatible goals. *	0.628
FACTOR 3	Organization Policy	People believe that their concerns and anxieties during periods of change are heard and taken into considerations	0.394
		Employees who do the best job of serving customers are more likely than other employees to be recognized or	0.364

Interpretation: Correlation analysis was used to examine the correlation between five dimensions of the Organization Culture scale. The Pearson correlation coefficients and significant values are presented in above Table 14. The results revealed that all five dimensions of Organization Culture were significantly positively correlated with each other, p<0.05. Regarding the first hypothesis of this research, the result showed a positive correlation between dimensions of organization culture

Table 14 Correlations Between Dimensions of Organization Culure
S. No	Variable		M Change	A Goals	C TeamWork	Customer O	Cultural S
1.	M Change	Pearson Correlation	1	0.704**	0.635**	0.694**	0.705**
		Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
		N	819	819	819	819	819
2.	AGoals	Pearson Correlation	0.704**	1	0.682**	0.819**	0.813**
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000		0.000	.000	0.000
		N	819	819	819	819	819
3.	CTeamWork	Pearson Correlation	0.635**	0.682**	1	0.729**	0.738**
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000		0.000	0.000
		N	819	819	819	819	819
4.	CustomerO	Pearson Correlation	0.694**	0.819**	.729**	1	0.846**
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	.000		0.000
		N	819	819	819	819	819
5.	CulturalS	Pearson Correlation	0.705**	0.813**	0.738**	0.846**	1
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
		N	819	819	819	819	819

Conclusion

The findings of the study suggests that examining the organization functions of managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork, and building a strong culture, customer orientation is important for the assessment of Organization Culture. A favorable, positive and strong organization culture is essential for sustainability of any organization.The present study included a survey of 819 employees of PNU randomly drawn using Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ). This instrument assessed five functions of organizational culture. It included managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork, building a strong culture and customer orientation. Factor analysis was undertaken (using SPSS 25 version) yielded three factors accounting for 54% of the variance in the data. These factors were identified as Organization objectives, organization process and organization policy. Hence it can be concluded that the objectives of the organization, its working procedures and policy create a significant impact on the Organization culture of the University.

Recommendations

To improve the university culture, the educators and administrators must design employee friendly organization policies; they must adopt flexible working systems and procedures instead of following the bureaucratic structures. The objectives of the organization must be well communicated to all the employees. Various dimensions of organizational culture must be examined to evaluate its impact on organization effectiveness.

Limitations of Research

1. Research analysis is limited to the time period from 2020-2021.

2. Organization culture of only one university, PNU is assessed.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourahbint Abdulrahman University through the fast track funding program.

References

1. Aidla, A., & Vadi, M. (2007). Relationships between organizational culture and performance in Estonian schools with regard to their size and location. Baltic Journal of Economics, 7(1), 3-17.
2. Anti?, M., & Ceri?, A. (2008). Organizational culture of faculty of civil engineering, University of Zagreb. In 8th International Conference: Organization, Technology and Management in Construction.
3. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher education, 45(1), 43-70.
4. Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: the International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(5), 615-633.
5. Blunt, P. (1991). Organizational culture and development. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2(1), 55-71.
6. Cameron, K.S., & Ettington, D.R. (1988). The conceptual foundations of organizational culture. volume 4 of Higher Education.
7. Cameron, K.S. (1985). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: Relationships to effectiveness. ASHE 1985 Annual Meeting Paper.
8. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
9. de Hilal, A.V.G., Wetzel, U., & Ferreira, V. (2009). Organizational culture and performance: a Brazilian case. Management Research News.
10. Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (2008). The new corporate cultures: Revitalizing the workplace after downsizing, mergers, and reengineering. Basic Books.
11. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1988). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Penguin Books.
12. Engman, L., & Thörnlund, N. (2008). The influence of international franchising on corporate culture: A case study of Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB.
13. Fletcher, B.C., & Jones, F. (1992). Measuring organizational culture: The cultural audit. Managerial Auditing Journal, 7(6), 30-36.
14. Folch, M.T., & Ion, G. (2009). Analysing the organizational culture of universities: Two models. Higher Education in Europe, 34(1), 143-154.
15. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 318-325.
16. Gjuraj, E. (2013). The importance of national culture studies in the organizational context. European Scientific Journal, 9(11), 160-180.
17. Gordon, G.G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798.
18. Gray, J.H., Densten, I.L., & Sarros, J.C. (2003). Size matters: Organisational culture in small, medium, and large Australian organisations. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 31-46.
19. Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22(4), 527-547.
20. Karatepe, O.M., & Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work–family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism management, 28(1), 238-252.
21. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts?. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
22. Kotter, J., & Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance free press: New York.
23. Kuh, G.D., & Whitt, E.J. (1988). The invisible tapestry. culture in American colleges and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education, Report No. 1, 1988. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Dept. E, One Depont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.
24. Kunda, G. (1995). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Organization Science , 6 (2), 228-230.
25. Kutanis, R.O., Mesci, M., Comlekci, I., & Sahin, O. (2012). Investigating hotel employee involvement in strategic human resources management. Journal of Tourism, 7(1), 117-134.
26. Lund, D.B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.
27. Marcoulides, G.A., & Heck, R.H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225.
28. McKinnon, J.L., Harrison, G.L., Chow, C.W., & Wu, A. (2003). Organizational culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan. International Journal of Business Studies, 11(1).
29. McNay, I. (1995). Universities going international: choices, cautions and conditions. Policy and Policy Implementation in Internationalisation of Higher Education, Amsterdam: EAIE.
30. Nystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (1984). To avoid organizational crises, unlearn, organizational dynamics. Spring, 53-65.
31. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L.C. (2015). Subcultural tensions in managing organisational culture: a study of an E nglish P remier L eague football organisation. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(2), 217-232.
32. Pareek, U. (1983). Making organizational role effective. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd, New Delhi.
33. Prajogo, D.I., & McDermott, C.M. (2011). The relationship between multidimensional organizational culture and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
34. Ribière, V.M., & Sitar, A.S. (2003). Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge-supporting culture. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 39-48.
35. Ritchie, P.L.J., & Sabourin, M. (2001). Contributing to world development: Research activities of the International Union of Psychological Science. International Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 71-75.
36. Salonda, L.L. (2008). Exploration of university culture: a Papua New Guinea case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University.
37. Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25 (2), 3-16.
38. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 339-358.
39. Sørensen, J.B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 70-91.
40. Sporn, B. (1999). Towards more adaptive universities: Trends of institutional reform in Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 24(1), 23-33.
41. Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities. Tertiary Education & Management, 7(2), 121-134.
42. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: International edition. Pearson2012.
43. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organisation: Fragments of a theory? in Frost P. Moore L. Louis M. Lundberg C. and Martin J.(Eds) Organisational Culture Beverly Hills CA.
44. Wallach, E.J. (1983). Organizations: The cultural match. Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 29-36.
45. Waterman, R.H., & Peters, T.J. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
46. Young, E. (1989). On the Naming of the Rose:* Interests and multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture. Organization Studies, 10(2), 187-206.