COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORS IN CFR AND DEUTSCHE BAHN

Abstract

The paper compares the organizational behaviour in CFR and Deutsche Bahn, from the point of view of employees, as well as managers, outlining possible similarities and best practices which can be, potentially, transferred. The main issues in focus regard what are the elements which contribute to the organizational behaviour of each company, a complex and controversial concept, and how national culture influences organizational culture, in an attempt to standardize what seems to be ineffable in organizational management. The limitations of the study reside in the limited number of respondents, as well as in the inherent subjectivity in selecting the variables. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

Abstract. The paper compares the organizational behaviour in CFR and Deutsche Bahn, from the point of view of employees, as well as managers, outlining possible similarities and best practices which can be, potentially, transferred. The main issues in focus regard what are the elements which contribute to the organizational behaviour of each company, a complex and controversial concept, and how national culture influences organizational culture, in an attempt to standardize what seems to be ineffable in organizational management. The limitations of the study reside in the limited number of respondents, as well as in the inherent subjectivity in selecting the variables.

Keywords: organizational behaviour, CFR, Deutsche Bahn, qualitative and quantitative analysis.

1. Introduction

Organizational behavior should be viewed as a system, or as a mechanism with interlinked parts, whose actions or inactions have an immediate or future effect upon at least one other element. These elements could be split into organizational mechanisms, group mechanisms, individual characteristics, individual mechanisms and individual outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2012). The contribution of the company to the system is made via the organizational culture and the organizational structure. These two represent the basis for the analysis of organizational behavior; in fact they represent the skeleton on which further details are added, just like the elements defining the group behavior within a company: the leadership and the teams. Teams are undeniably subject to diversity, as there are no two people with the exact characteristics; due to this fact the focus should be on the processes developed by the teams and especially on how communication occurs. Then, each team needs to have a leader, be them formal or informal, in order to direct the whole activity to the well- being of the team and of the company. Different leadership styles and behaviors must be approached in order to find the compatibility between the leader and the team. A leader must be capable of inspiring the "followers", driving them to the overall success of the team; this is why leaders are acknowledged based on their power to influence people.

The individual characteristics, such as the ability to perform certain tasks and the personality and cultural values have a definite impact upon the individual mechanisms. An individual's behavior is influenced by the job satisfaction (studies show that an employee is motivated solely by the salary for only up to three months), by the level of stress (tight deadlines, unnecessarily tough bosses, conflicts with colleagues, etc.), by the motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), by the level of trust, justice and ethics promoted within the company (not trusting the working environment can cause serious damage to the working relations and to the task outcome), and by the learning and the decision making opportunities. These individual mechanisms have as direct results the job performance and the organizational commitment of an individual.

Culture is one of the main shapers of behavior in general and for organizational behavior in particular. It is the starting point for every human interaction as it is so versatile and can take numerous forms. There are various sets of cultures, each of which is characterized by its own set of values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, reactions, judgments, stereotypes, perceptions. In order for a culture to be created it needs to have a group of people to represent the culture and to be, in turn, represented by that culture (Adler, 2007). Being part of a culture creates a sense of belonging for an individual, and being capable of further transferring the particularities of that culture can become a sense of responsibility towards the society to which they are part of.

The organizational culture needs to be integrated in all the employees' activities and newcomers need to be trained to behave like this (David, 2007). The result must yield into patterns of behavior, perception, thinking and feeling. The organizational culture is unique for each existing company, and for some of them it is a great force that stimulates the activity since it can include elements like: values, beliefs, rites, rituals, ceremonies, myths, stories, metaphors, symbols and heroes. "The culture can be a mostly structural capital or mostly relational capital. It can be oriented, autocratically speaking, by the leader's attitude, or it can be created at the intersection of the various changes among the people constituting the organization" (Br?tianu et al., 2010, p. 144).

Communication is probably the factor that all scholars talk about nowadays. It is in fact vital to "take advantage" of it, because it is the main way by which organizational interaction takes place. Communication can be either formal or informal, can be oral or in written, can be verbal or non-verbal (body language or paralanguage). Given all these factors, it is so easy to get confused with signs and communication signals that the message could be misunderstood (Pauley and Pauley, 2009). It is advisable for the company to facilitate interactions between employees, to eliminate as much as possible the hierarchical communication bureaucracies and to promote informal meetings that make the employees comfortable when having a business-related conversation. The enterprise should also use modern means of communication, which ease the flow of documents. The organizational culture should support communication throughout the whole company, to have a sustained flow of information and feedback.

The company has to focus on how employees produce quality for the business by working both individually and in groups. It could be said that a happy employee, who understands and applies the company's principles, brings happy and (most probably) loyal customers (Prejmerean, 2009). The motivated people are the ones analyzing the benefits of accepting a certain incentive considering the needs and wants they have at a certain moment. There can be considered two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsinc (Ghinea, 2010). The first one refers to the internal drivers a person has in order to perform something or act in a certain way (like the need to be appreciated for a good result). The extrinsic type refers to what a person receives from other people to be driven to perform or act in a certain way. Good managers, who understand these two concepts, will try to exploit the intrinsic type in order to induce will. However, the second approach is also very important to be valued.

Kristoff (1996) argued that the broader definition of person-organization fit is set around the compatibility between individuals and organizations and that there are numerous misunderstandings stemming from many attempts to define this person- organization fit since it could be split into multiple categories. However, from her point of view some further explanations are necessary. One is related to supplementary versus complementary fit. The first type of fit - supplementary - is specific to situations when an individual has similar characteristics to the persons around them, whereas the latter type - complementary - occurs when a person's characteristics represent an addition to what others can do. The second explanation has a lot in common with the needs-supplies approach (the organization is capable of fulfilling individual needs or expectations) and with the demands-ability approach (the individual is capable of fulfilling organizational needs or expectations).

O'Reilly et al. (1991) consider that the more general person-organization fit should be judged from two different but linked perspectives. One is the Person- Situation Fit, which judges the compatibility between certain particularities of a company and the employees working within it. It analyzes the way in which some individual particularities interact with the attributes at the workplace. In fact, the more alike are the person's own image about themselves and their perception about the company, then the better is this person perceived by the organization itself and becomes preferred to other employees. This Person-Situation Fit is not enough to grasp the concept of P-O Fit because of the implicit limitations that occur due to descriptions of individuals or situations. The second perspective is that of Person- Culture Fit, which actually attempts to identify and explain the attitudes and behaviors of persons and teams in an organization with respect to notions pertaining to culture: semiotics, rituals, ceremonies, stories and language.

Sutarjo (2011) states that persons and organizations choose one another based on what they could both offer and on what they see as fitting their own needs (they seek mutually beneficial relationships). He suggests 10 ways in which the Person- Organization Fit could be managed efficiently and effectively: Process of hire and selection of employees (to match the needs of the two entities and to avoid employee turnover); Deliver communication/message during hire and selection of employee (clear communication of the job tasks and of the organizational culture); Socialization (adaptation of the newly hired employees to the already established organizational culture); Intervening culture (changing the organizational culture if so necessary to create a better fit); Comprehensive training; Measure "ideal" and "actual" of organization culture and values; Career planning and development management process; Maintain diversity in the organization; The role of the leader and the Focus on both the individual and the organizational culture.

2. Cross-cultural implications: Romania vs. Germany

There is a visible discrepancy between the culture of Romania and the culture of Germany. However, the differences are rather diminished through a common background since both countries are located in Europe and are members of the European Union. Another interesting idea comes from Romania's history, respectively from its relations to Austria and Germany. So, if we think that part of Romania's population has German origins or speaks fluently German we could also deduce that the cultures have certain issues in common. From some points of view the German culture is fundamentally different from most of the Romanian's culture. Rugman and Collinson (2012) provide in their recent book the summaries of two famous classifications of cultural dimensions: Hofstede's four dimensions of culture and Trompenaar's seven dimensions of culture. Each of these will be presented in relation to Romania and Germany.

In order to gain a good understanding of how a culture is characterized according to any indicators used, it is necessary to look at a culture by comparing to it to at least one other culture, taking into account the same measuring units. The fact that the Romanian culture is presented in a comparison with the German cultures aids the purpose of this paper and sheds a better light upon the elements presented since some opposing directions have been noted by specialists in the field, and Hofstede is probably one of the most eloquent examples. Figure 1 graphically shows the comparison between the Romanian and German cultures according to Hofstede's dimensions (PDI is the power distance, IDV is the individualism dimension, MAS is masculinity versus femininity, UAI is the uncertainty avoidance and LTO is the long time orientation - more recent dimension, which was not measured for Romania).

Trompenaars has focused in his studies on seven main cultural dimensions. The synthesis obtained for Germany and Romania according to these dimensions is depicted by Figure 2. In relation to the first dimension of Trompenaars' classification, Romania is positioned in the middle between universalism and particularism. This is explained through a desire to apply the same rules to everybody (characterized by universalism and a USA approach), but the failure to do to so in practice leads to numerous concessions especially due to personal reasons (characteristic of particularism). Romanians are individualistic but rather emotional people, however they may become neutral at the working place in order to solve the issues based on solid grounds and not on assumptions.

The differences between national cultures are identified at a core level and are related to the values while the differences between organizational cultures are mainly visible through the practices. Values are more intangible concepts and more difficult to grasp and to understand. The cultural differences between companies help the members of an organization to distinguish themselves (Segal, 2009). Since practices are generally more superficial, they can be more easily altered. Therefore, cultural dimensions are used to compare two nations, and they are not relevant in comparing two companies found in the same country. For the general purpose of comparing two organizations, be them in the same country or in different countries, it is necessary to use the differences found at organizational culture level (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Moreover, Cameron and Quinn (2011) developed four Organizational Culture types based on the studies of Robert Quinn and John Rohrbaugh in 1983 concerning the Competing Values Framework (Figure 3). The Clan Oriented organizational culture can be seen as a friendly environment; just like in an extended family, team members are characterized by commitment, cohesion and morale which results in teamwork participation and consensus. Loyalty and tradition are the things that keep the Clan running. Its success is derived from the sensitivity to clients' needs and requirements and the concern for people. The Adhocracy Oriented organizational culture is dynamic, entrepreneurial, risk taking and creative. Innovation is a keyword in this situation due to experimentation needs. The best strategy is to focus on differentiation through cutting edge technology expressed as products or services. Freedom to take initiative is granted and even praised. In what concerns the Hierarchically Oriented organizational culture, it is generally viewed as formalized, structured and bureaucracy oriented. Through consistency and uniformity it aims at achieving stability and efficiency. This organization is profitable because of the rules and internal regulations which drive it to a having a low cost strategy, developing good coordination skills for quality delivery and in a timely fashion. By analyzing a Market Oriented organizational culture, one can observe the fact that it is achievement oriented, by eliminating competition and striving to reach the settled goals. In this situation the focus is mainly on winning, as success and reputation are valued. The general strategy of this company revolves around gaining market share through penetration actions.

3. Research methodology

In this study, two hypotheses have been formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There are a significant number of similarities between the natural behavior of people as individuals and the organizational environment elements of the company that they work for.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): There are a significant number of similarities between the organizational behavior within CFR and the organizational behavior within Deutsche Bahn, from a cross-cultural perspective.

The Romanian Railway Company (Compania Na?ional? de C?i Ferate - CFR) is always subject to critique by a vast number of people and through various means, out of which the most challenging is the mass-media. The purpose is to check the validity of the organizational culture and to see whether the Romanian company for railways could be brought to the German standards, or if it should undertake a large series of changes. At the same time, the desire is to see whether there are some things that German Railway Company (Deutsche Bahn AG - DB) could take as examples of good practice from CFR. The German railway company is one of the most appreciated organizations in this industry worldwide. Its infrastructure, organization and constant improvement since its foundation contributed to the well-known overall German quality. Romania and Germany have at least one point in common: their former political regime. Before Deutsche Bahn was founded in 1994, Germany has been under the influence of communism, just as Romania has had communist regime for decades before current CFR was founded in 1998 in a democratic Romania.

To be able to test the research hypotheses a survey was conducted within CFR and DB by the means of questionnaires. The questionnaires comprise a number of 20 statements related to the organizational culture and individual behavior. For each of the 20 statements, the respondents had to choose the option that best suited their opinion, using the Linkert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The latter part of the questionnaire was designed for finding out personal details about each respondent, elements which might influence their opinion on the mentioned statements (age, gender, the level of education, years of activity within the company, position within the company).

The research is in fact a double comparison. The questionnaires have been designed to assess the point of view of employees in relation to the 20 statements, which have been phrased pair-wise, such that employees can express their opinions concerning the organizational culture taking into account their perception about the elements of the organizational environment and their actual beliefs and attitude towards these cultural and organizational elements. Thus, the first comparison is an internal one, verifying the compatibility between the personal point of view and the professional point of view of each employee. The second comparison stems from the fact that the study is focused on two different companies: CFR SA and Deutsche Bahn.

The objective was to obtain primary data to be further processed. The sampling was not restricted to certain issues; the topic of organizational behavior has to be verified at any level and between any of the employees. The chosen method of investigation was by the means of questionnaires disseminated to the employees, being the easiest way of reaching them and of getting an honest answer. For CFR, the questionnaire has been handed out in Romanian, whilst for DB it has been handed out in German. In both companies there were 90 questionnaires handed to be filled in. For Romania, the response rate was 95%, whilst for Germany, the response rate was 55%. (*The English Sample of the questionnaire can be found in Annex 1, whilst Annex 2 and 3 summarize the responses to each statement according to the personal indicators).

4. Organizational behavior analysis: CFR vs. DB

This section is dedicated to the analysis of organizational behavior at individual and organizational level for the two chosen companies, CFR and Deutsche Bahn. The appropriate approach for this research is one based on cluster analysis with regards to the descriptive measures.

Deutsche Bahn respondents are more reserved given that the means obtained are very close to the neutral value 3. Figure 4 shows a summary of the dimensions at individual or organizational level for CFR and Figure 5 shows the same condensation but for DB. It must be noted that the categorization of indicators according to high, medium or low differs for CFR and DB in that for DB very few dimensions have been rated as purely high or purely low. Figure 4 has been designed to show the highest and lowest indicators for DB in relation to all the other indicators from within it and not in relation to CFR. At organizational level, CFR could be given as an example for the high level of non-financial benefits offered, for the good application of rules and because hierarchy is not an impediment for communication and collaboration, as they strive for flattening the organizational structures. All the other elements should be either improved or revitalized with a slow or rapid pace as appropriate.

CFR definitely has some gaps in terms of its organizational culture, however DB could be set as a positive example through the transparency of the objectives, the strive for cultural decentralization, the internal promotion opportunities and the informal communication facilities offered, all backed up by the thorough observance of rules at the same time with a consideration for personal beliefs, values and ideas. DB does not have many organizational points to improve, but it should consider working on the non-financial benefits, reducing the formal character of the organizational structure and trying to diminish the culture centralization by letting the background of employees dictate the general direction.

In terms of individual behavior, CFR is better situated than DB. Employees must moderate their attitude towards the importance levied on hierarchy, as they are too strongly attached to the idea that everybody must first strive to build the position and the experience before being worth taking into account. DB employees on the other hand have a strong desire for expressing their beliefs and ideas and of interacting with various cultures in order to expand their perspectives. They must learn to accept more responsibility, to be more focused on achieving tasks because they help increase their knowledge and experience pool and less because of the consequences associated with the non-compliance (Tan??u, 2006). Germans are characterized by a high level of stability, organization and achievement, but they must learn to let go, considering the fact that they are not willing to make changes in their environment although it might help their personal development.

Individuals have proved that their desire for a certain behavior or attitude is sometimes not linked to what the organization is able to offer or wishes to offer (Ghinea and Br?tianu, 2012). For some situations the individual and organizational levels match overall, but often it happens that these things are not compatible. The cluster analysis was preferred to simply showing a comparison in terms of averages obtained for each particular statement because it takes into account the responses by a check-up both vertically and horizontally. According to how each dimension behaved itself within the cluster, the study goes further by placing each cluster in a matrix. The matrix was designed such that on the vertical axis we have the organizational environment or more specifically the organizational culture, while on the horizontal axis we have individual potential or shown attitudes. By combining these two dimensions four scenarios can be discussed according to the four quadrants obtained. The ideal situation is represented by quadrant 1 and it is a Perfect Match, meaning a perfect compatibility between the individual and the working environment. This match must be preserved since it helps the organization grow and increase profits and the individual to evolve. It is a mutually beneficial relationship that must be fostered. Quadrant 4 (Just There) is the worst situation as the employee is highly unmotivated to be part of the company; the individual cannot integrate due do his or her perspectives and the company cannot efficiently "absorb" this particular employee. Neither the employee, nor the company benefits from this partnership as none of them is committed to the other.

The organizational behavior comparison of CFR and DB will take into account the position of each organizational and individual dimension according to the matrices obtained. Figure 6 depicts the clusters' positioning on the matrix for CFR and Figure 7 shows the corresponding matrix for DB. In the first quadrant, or the Perfect Match situation, CFR has twice as more indicators present through its cluster 2, while DB only has four through its cluster 1. DB employees like to express their beliefs and the rules of the organization are observed throughout the whole activities (this complements the employees' need for having everything clear and well-structured, but it also encourages the fear of non-compliance). The company surely does not lack the informal communication facilities or the positive view upon diversity; because of this respondents probably enjoy stating their points of view as well as bringing along the cultural background. As it was already established, Deutsche Bahn has more organizational dimensions that are better ranked, than it has individual dimensions. The organizational culture has a lot of potential for evolving to an example to be given to other companies, but the individual attitudes prove that it is highly formalized and anchored into a structural rigidity. It is interesting to see that only the need of employees to express their beliefs is in assonance with the best situated organizational indicators.

Quadrant 2 (Organizational Potential) and Quadrant 3 (Individual Potential) are not ideal, but could be improved so as to reach the first quadrant. By Organizational Potential it must be understood that the company provides for a healthy environment, but the people lack commitment or interest; for this relationship to be brought to a Perfect Match the employee must be motivated. The Individual Potential quadrant is characterized by the fact that the employees have a good background for developing within a healthy organizational environment but the organizational culture must be changed or the situation will negatively evolve into the 4th quadrant. In fact, the positioning in the second quadrant might just be a little better than the positioning in the third one, because if the company provides for a good and favorable environment, one individual could be "adjusted" to the overall goal, while it is rather difficult to change a faulty environment to a fully functional one.

CFR offers good facilities for encouraging informal communication, which is perfectly compatible with the respondents' choice of informal communication that prevails over the strictness of the formal means of communication. The clarity of the mission, vision and objectives, the fact that there are some internal promotion opportunities in the view of the employees and the application of internal rules and regulations help build up the intrinsic motivation for accomplishing tasks. The individuals admitted that they enjoy interacting with people pertaining to different cultures, while the organization is capable of showing respect towards the individual ideals and beliefs. This factor may be even one of the reasons why employees have developed such good attitudes that aid the formation of a healthy organizational behavior within a favorable work atmosphere.

CFR has to deploy less effort in sustaining the position of this cluster since the numerous elements here act like attraction forces for those surrounding them. Deutsche Bahn needs to strongly work on keeping those few categories it has and also to make efforts to bring parts of the other two clusters to a more desirable level. Although the Romanian culture may be perceived as more lenient that the German one, the analysis shows that it was capable of fostering the creation of a large cluster that creates a perfect match between the organizational and the individual level.

CFR is placed in the second quadrant through its first cluster, but it might be in danger of sliding towards worse because it only has two organizational elements grouped with four individual ones. The company focuses on motivating its employees with non-financial incentives, instead of insisting solely on financial benefits. The fear of sharing knowledge and experience and the fear of accepting decisional power due to increased responsibility bring down the preference for using communication and collaboration to solve daily issues but also the need to express beliefs. The employees who are rated low in terms of these individual dimensions must be motivated with something else besides the organizational elements found with them in this cluster, because they are not linked together in their essence.

There is a similar situation for DB in terms of positioning within the Organizational Potential quadrant. There are good opportunities for internal promotion, the culture is partially decentralized and the hierarchy is not extremely tough. At individual level, the safety anchor is highly hindering both the informal communication and the efficiency of communication and collaboration. Also, DB employees are keen on clear structures, formulas for success and they place a lot of value of the power of hierarchy. The numerous internal promotion opportunities make employees so attached to the company; in fact, the company would not even want to have a large employee turnover. As long as these two elements go in the same cluster, the fear to leave the company cannot be diminished. Since hierarchy is not extremely formal, the attachment of the employees to the hierarchies could be reduced. DB has a potential for becoming fully decentralized. By ensuring that the organizational culture naturally develops based on the employees' personal contributions, this company could increase the people's preference for informal communication and for using it together with collaboration to solve issues.

By comparison to CFR, the organizational elements present for DB in the second cluster might be sufficient to drag the faulty individual characteristics to better terms as they are linked. In order for this to happen, the company must improve those elements or encourage them through other sources of employee motivation.

There is no combination for any of the two companies that could result in the formation of a cluster belonging to the third quadrant, where the individual potential is high but the organization is unstable and poor in providing means for development. Although it might be the second least desirable positioning on the matrix, it would have been preferable for any of the two companies not to have a cluster in the fourth Quadrant or to have had a smaller one.

The fourth quadrant of CFR looks again better than that of DB, simply because it has fewer elements. Considering that it is the worst possible scenario for any company, the ideal situation would be for this quadrant to be completely empty. We live however in an imperfect world, therefore the positioning in this quadrant must aid the improvement and by no means is it exhaustive or definite. It is interesting to see that in the case of CFR, the centralization and decentralization can be found in the same quadrant. This happens because they both had neutral average values. The organizational culture is partly dictated by the top management and partly by the employees' backgrounds. It indicates that there are good chances for the company to evolve towards a fully decentralized culture, but this evolution is undermined by the managerial implication in setting the direction of the organizational culture. CFR does not seem to view diversity as a success factor. The safety anchor and the fear of non- compliance are not negative in their entirety, but their values are in the danger zone. What really drags this cluster down is the importance that employees put on hierarchy. This quadrant could migrate more easily to the second quadrant than to the third one, because the organizational elements are rather at the borderline of becoming positive dimensions. At individual level, things look harder to transpose to another quadrant, especially the importance allocated to hierarchy.

DB's status is worse as nearly half of all dimensions have jammed in the fourth quadrant. The culture is highly centralized and the emphasis is on praising employees through financial means; despite this, employees are satisfied by the current situation as they do not find a point in being motivated by intrinsic factors. As achievement oriented people, Germans might think of money as the most suitable "payment" method because it shows them the exact amount of money received for the amount of work they offered. The employees' beliefs and opinions are not regarded as important and the fear to share knowledge and experience as well as the fear of non- compliance might be linked to it. People do not really enjoy interacting with diversity or assuming more decisional power in spite of the consequences. DB must deploy serious efforts for determining the third cluster to be positioned on any other position; if this is not possible, the company must try to break this cluster, such that parts of it can migrate to other quadrants. Surprisingly, the clarity of the mission, vision and objectives is present in this cluster. One meaning is derived from the very representation against the multiple correspondence analysis, which compares the results for each dimensions both vertically and horizontally such that it shows an accurate depiction of the relationships formed between the elements.

5. Conclusions

This paper aimed at offering a practical perspective upon how the organizational behavior could be perceived within companies from the point of view of the compatibility between the organizational culture and individual preferences. It has been shown how the field of organizational behavior could be conceptualized in terms of its components and purpose. By emphasizing the cultural differences between Romania and Germany I wanted to bring an argument in choosing CFR and DB for proving whether (and how much) different a Romanian company could be from a German one in the same field of activity. Moreover, the two companies have had a similar start and background, but the last decades impacted them in such a fashion that DB was capable of growing and evolving at a faster pace. Germany leveled up much easier from its political regimes, while Romania has faced a longer period of decay.

The comparative analysis revolved around two hypotheses: the first one stating that there is a significant number of similarities between the natural behavior of people as individuals and the elements of the organizational environment, whereas the second one said that there are many similarities between CFR and DB from the point of view of the organizational behavior. It must be understood that the compatibility between the organizational and the individual levels still exists even if those specific dimensions do not correspond to the acceptable degree demonstrated by the specialized literature.

The first Hypothesis can be accepted for both companies as less than half of the elements are incompatible between the organizational and the individual level. However, for CFR this hypothesis can be accepted with a higher degree of confidence, as most of the dimensions are compatible. It is extremely good that CFR is more focused on providing non-financial benefits, which goes hand in hand with employees' preference for being motivated by intrinsic factors. Another compatibility can be found in the fact that CFR does not offer too many internal promotion opportunities, but employees are willing to change something themselves in order to find their matching spot. Something that contradicts the first hypothesis is the low level of hierarchical formality opposing to the employees' view that hierarchy is important. Most of the individual elements are graded better than they are for DB, whilst CFR has some weak organizational points. Despite this, it looks like the company can sustain the individual potential of its people, but it must work on improving the organizational environment.

DB's situation is somehow opposite to that of CFR, in that more organizational dimensions are rated better than the individuals dimensions. Moreover, DB respondents were quite reserved in expressing strong opinions, as extreme answers have been generally avoided. It is interesting to see that a very good compatibility (sustaining the acceptance of the first hypothesis) stems from the importance levied on hierarchy, from both the company's and the employees' point of view. Nearly all the other connections that could be formed indicate that Deutsche Bahn ought to invest efforts to motivate the employees in embracing the positive aspects related to the diminished, while people must learn that informal communication combined with collaboration could become key-points in solving problems.

The second Hypothesis can be rejected because of three main arguments. Firstly, only two organizational dimensions have similar average values for CFR and DB (the good observance of objectives and internal rules throughout all activities and the degree to which the organizational culture is decentralized). In addition, there are merely three individual statements rated similarly by the employees of the companies: the embracement of diversity, the pleasure taken in expressing one's own beliefs, values and ideas and the fact that the intrinsic motivation preference prevails over the extrinsic motivational system. Secondly, the majority of organizational elements are better rated in the case of DB, whereas the majority of individual elements are more positive within CFR. Overall, there are many differences resulting from the comparison of these companies. DB could be set as an example for the clarity of expressing its mission and vision statements as well as its objectives. It could also show how a company must provide internal promotion opportunities or how to listen to employees' ideas and needs in order to drive the business to success. On the other hand, it must understand that a decentralized culture fosters the backgrounds and opinions of the people. CFR's employees have better individual approaches in 8 out of 10 elements measured, but they really stand out through expressing their beliefs, by not letting others decide for them, for being open to changes and for choosing communication and collaboration as means for resolving problems. Surprisingly, in spite of the Germans' need for hierarchical structures, Romanians are even keener on placing great importance on hierarchy.

Lastly, the second hypothesis can be rejected due to the comparison of matrices that show the placement of the clusters formed by all the elements in relation to the organizational environment and the individual potential. In this regard, there are only a few similarities between CFR and DB, one being that none of them has a cluster placed in the Individual Potential quadrant. What is more, CFR has the largest cluster on the most favorable position (Perfect Match), whereas DB has its largest cluster placed in the least desirable quadrant, where both the organizational environment and the individual potential lack sustainability. Only a couple of dimensions are located in the same quadrant for both companies, but the precise positioning in fact differs because of the means obtained.

These results demonstrate that in order to verify how healthy the organizational behavior of a company is, the analysis must be performed both on what the firm is offering and on what would match the people's expectations. The ideal situation is when the person-organization fit is reached. As it has been shown, the cultural differences and the organizational culture differences make this compatibility become harder to achieve, given that there cannot be established clear rules of improvement.

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by project PNII-RU-TE-351.

Sidebar

Management & Marketing

Challenges for the Knowledge Society

(2013) Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 511-528

References

References

Adler, N.J. (2007), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th Edition, South- Western College Pub, Cincinnati

Br?tianu, C., Vasilache, S. and Mândruleanu, A. (2010), Dinamica integratorilor organiza?ionali, Curtea Veche, Bucure?ti

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 3rd Edition, Jossey-Bass, California

Colquitt, J., LePine, J. and Wesson, M. (2012), Organizational Behavior, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill/Irwin, Boston

David, F.R. (2007), Strategic management, 11th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Dima, A.M. (2013), "Factorial Analysis of the Correlation Between Competitive Strategy and Company's Characteristics: The Case of Romanian Business Environment", in Thomas, A.R., Pop, N. and Br?tianu, C. (eds.), The Changing Business Landscape of Romania, pp. 153-176, Springer, New York

Ghinea, M.V. (2009), Conducting the company, BREN, Bucure?ti

Ghinea, M.V. and Br?tianu, C. (2012), "Organizational culture modeling", Management & Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 257-276

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J.G. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, New York

Kristof, A.L. (1996), "Person-Organization Fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implications", Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, No.1, pp. 1-49

O'Reilly, A.C. III, Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), "People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487-516

Pauley, J.A. and Pauley J.F. (2009), Communication. The Key to Effective Leadership, Quality Press, Wisconsin.

Prejmerean, M. (2009), Customer relationship management, Editura ASE, Bucure?ti

Rugman, A.M. and Collinson, S. (2012), International Business, Pearson Prentice Hall, London

Segal, T. (2009), Techniques de négociation, Editura ASE, Bucure?ti

Segal, T. (2012), "Noise in negotiation. Towards a typology", Management & Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 111-118

Sutarjo, J. (2011), "Ten ways of managing person-organization fit (P-O Fit) effectively: a literature study", International Journal of Business and Social Science. Vol. 2, No. 21, Special Issue, November 2011, pp. 226-233

Tan??u, A. (2006), "The organizational culture role in promoting innovations", Management & Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 13-22

Investopedia website available at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/organizational- behavior.asp, (accessed April 2nd, 2013)

Hofstede Center available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/index.php (accessed May 4th, 2013)