How to evaluate enterprises

At the end of 1970s, the rapid development of Japanese enterprises attracted worldwide attention, and western scholars found that corporate culture was one of the important reasons for its success. The word "corporate culture" officially appeared in academic circles, which can be traced back to 1979' s "Corporate Culture Research" published by pettigrew in Management Science Quarterly. Since then, the practical and academic circles have always maintained a high degree of enthusiasm for corporate culture.

Different scholars explain corporate culture from different angles. Some scholars believe that corporate culture is the convention, ceremony and ceremony of enterprises (DealandKennedy,1982; TriceandBeyer, 1984), and some scholars think it is a control and trading mechanism (Jones,1983; WilkingsandOuchi, 1983), some scholars think it is a shared, natural and inherent assumption (Schein, 1985), and some scholars think it is a model of sharing values and beliefs (DeshpandeandWebster, 1987). Some scholars think it is an organizational habit (Burack, 199 1) ... Most scholars understand corporate culture from values, beliefs, norms, habits and symbols (Deal,1982; Hofstede, 1980,1984; Morris, Avila Allen,1993; ChatmanJehn， 1994； Odian, 1997). In the author's view, corporate culture is the sum of material and spiritual productivity and material and spiritual wealth created in practice through the long-term advocacy of key figures and the recognition of all members in a certain social and cultural environment.

The research on corporate culture can be divided into two representative schools, one is the qualitative research school represented by Edgar. Schein, the other is a quantitative research school represented by RobertQuinn. There are many disputes between qualitative research and quantitative research. Scholars who support qualitative research believe that qualitative research can provide in-depth and holistic views, while quantitative research is difficult to achieve and easily influenced by theoretical basis, sample selection and analytical tools. Scholars who support quantitative research believe that quantitative research is more scientific and weakens the influence of subjective factors and situational factors, while qualitative research is often disturbed by it and has no rigorous theoretical support. Although both have advantages and disadvantages, quantitative research is more scientific and universal, and more scholars are not attacking the weaknesses of quantitative research, but considering how to improve it.

The framework of competitive values is one of the most influential models advocated by quantitative research school. This model is widely used to analyze corporate culture. Through the two dimensions of "focusing on internal-external" and "emphasizing change-emphasizing stability", corporate culture can be divided into four categories: team culture, hierarchical culture, flexible culture and market culture.

Second, harmonious culture.

The 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China regards "more harmonious society" as one of the goals of building a well-off society in an all-round way, and the Fourth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China regards "improving the ability to build a harmonious socialist society" as an important aspect of the Party's ruling ability. Building a harmonious socialist society embodies the current and future interests of the broad masses of the people, and marks that the overall layout of China's socialist construction has developed into a four-in-one system of socialist economic construction, political construction, cultural construction and social construction.

The basic contents of building a harmonious socialist society are: establishing social relations of mutual respect and trust between people; Everyone does his best, gets his place, and lives in harmony; Harmonious revival, harmonious entrepreneurship and harmonious prosperity. Enterprise is the basic unit of society. To achieve the harmony of the whole society, we must first achieve the harmony of enterprises. In order to build a harmonious socialist society, we should also build a harmonious enterprise accordingly. Its basic contents include: cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect, mutual trust and harmonious coexistence among enterprise members, so that members can do their best and get their place, with the goal of promoting the harmonious development of enterprises and realizing social harmony.

The core work of building a harmonious enterprise is to create a harmonious culture, influence enterprise members from all levels through culture, and realize enterprise harmony in an all-round way.

A harmonious society has six basic characteristics: democracy and the rule of law, fairness and justice, honesty and friendship, vitality, stability and order, and harmony between man and nature. The first five features emphasize the relationship between man and society, and the sixth features emphasize the relationship between man and nature. Hu Jintao pointed out that to build a harmonious society, a social atmosphere and interpersonal relationship of solidarity, mutual assistance, equality, friendship and common progress should be formed. Enterprise harmony is the foundation and premise of social harmony. First, we should form a harmonious enterprise atmosphere and harmonious interpersonal relationship.

Corporate culture is a standard of basic assumptions that a specific enterprise invents, discovers or develops when dealing with various problems in the process of adapting to the external environment and internal integration (Schein, 1984). Corporate culture can be classified according to some similarities. Some scholars (DealandKennedy,1982; Wallach,1983; Quinn, 1983,1984; Luo Changhai,1991; KotterandHeskett， 1992； Mannlx， 1995； GoffeeandJones, 1998) tried to classify, but the classification was different because of different perspectives.

What kind of culture is a harmonious culture and what kind of culture is easy to develop into a harmonious culture? The biggest feature of harmonious culture is advocating honesty and friendship and emphasizing interpersonal relationships. From the characteristics of harmonious culture, we can see that the corporate culture that emphasizes internal relations is the embryonic form of harmonious culture. Some scholars have described the corporate culture that emphasizes internal relations from different angles: the supportive culture of wallach (1983) aims at establishing a friendly environment, encourages employees to make equal progress, advocates openness and harmony, and emphasizes the value of "home"; The team culture of Quinn (1983, 1984, 199 1) pays attention to the interior, emphasizes flexibility, advocates care, commitment, morale, discussion, participation and openness, and cares about interpersonal relationships. Mannlx( 1995) is a relationship-oriented corporate culture, which emphasizes relationships and advocates the establishment of a harmonious, cooperative and supportive environment. Hood (1998) equality culture encourages the team to be highly involved in decision-making and advocates participation, authorization and process; The * * culture of Goffee and Jones( 1998) has a high degree of sociality and unity. Enterprises are full of intimacy, respect and friendliness, and corporate goals are given priority. A culture that emphasizes internal relations is the embryonic form of a harmonious culture. Song Lianke (2006) thinks that the team culture in Quinn's (199 1) competitive value model is the most harmonious corporate culture. Therefore, we can learn from relevant theories to build a theoretical framework of harmonious culture, thus providing theoretical support for the creation of harmonious culture.

Third, human resource management.

Hiring a large number of workers is one of the remarkable features of the industrial revolution in the19th century, which forces personnel management to become a part of enterprise management, which is the beginning of modern human resource management in the true sense. However, the human resource management in this period was only a simple administrative management related to people, such as paying salaries, recruiting employees and managing files. Taylor's scientific management, Hawthorne's behavioral science and organizational behavior all advocate and promote the management of people, but at this time, a mature theoretical system has not yet formed. From 65438 to 0954, peter drucker, a famous management scientist, introduced the concept of "human resources" for the first time in his book Management Practice, thinking that managers can use other resources, but human resources can only be used by themselves.

Early scholars usually study all kinds of practices in human resource management alone, and think that the concept of human resource management includes all kinds of human resource management practices. Fombrum, Tichy and Devanna( 1984) divide human resource management practices into four categories: selection, training, evaluation and salary. At this time, scholars focus on their respective research fields, and do not realize the mutual relationship and function between these human resource management practices. In 1970s and 1980s, western countries set off a wave of strategic management, and human resource management scholars also tried to introduce strategic ideas, so some terms such as "strategic compensation" appeared, but the relationship between human resource management practices was still ignored.

It was not until the late 1980s that Guest( 1989) proposed that strategic human resource management should integrate human resource management into strategic planning, and Schuler and Walker( 1990) also proposed that human resource managers should cooperate with line managers. Wright and McMahan( 1992) define strategic human resource management as a series of planned and strategic human resource deployment and management behaviors for enterprises to achieve their goals. This definition has been widely recognized by academic circles and is often quoted. Until the strategic human resource management stage, modern human resource management gradually established a mature theoretical system.

The research on human resource management can be divided into two categories, one is based on human resource management practice, and the other is based on human resource system.

Different scholars have different understandings and divisions of human resource management practice. Pfeffer( 1994) investigated 16 human and resource management practices. Delerit and Dottie (1996) were studied by osterman (1987), Sonenfeld and Peppel (1988), Kerr and Slocombe (1987), Miles and Si Nuo (1984).

In 1980s, with the deepening of strategic human resource management research, many scholars put forward different methods to divide human resource management systems. Myers and Si Nuo (1984) divided human resource management systems into type A, type B and type AB, Kerr and Slocombe (1987) divided human resource management systems into hierarchical systems and market systems, and Sonenfeld and Peppel (1988) regarded human resource management systems as clubs, colleges, baseball teams and. Delery and Doty( 1996) divide human resource management systems into internal-oriented systems, market-oriented systems and mixed systems, while Heijltjes(2000) divides human resource management systems into traditional, improved, resilient and integrated systems.

Fourthly, the relationship between corporate culture and human resource management.

Corporate culture is not only influenced by social culture, but also by many factors, such as the possibility that new employees will bring new ideas and lead to cultural diversity and variation (NelsonandWinter,1982; WeeksandGalunic, 2003); The expansion of business scope has brought new business demands, resulting in the inadaptability of the original culture (Wang Dongsheng, 2003) ... Corporate culture affects all aspects of the enterprise. In fact, the influence of all aspects of the enterprise will also have an impact on the corporate culture. Many scholars have noticed the role of human resource management, and believe that human resource management affects the creation, maintenance and transformation of corporate culture, and is an important factor affecting corporate culture. Wong( 1996) found that the cultural construction of multinational corporations is ineffective only through artifacts, and the more important means is human resource management system, which can explain the company's values, beliefs and assumptions. Cabreira (1999) thinks that designing human resource practice planning that meets the needs of organizational strategy is one of the two ways to acquire strategic culture. Both human resource management practice and human resource management system have an important impact on corporate culture.

Corporate culture is closely related to human resource management, and there are three main views abroad: first, corporate culture affects human resource management; Second, human resource management affects corporate culture; Third, corporate culture and human resource management interact. Viewpoint 1: Adler (1997) thinks that culture has a universal and in-depth influence on human resource management; Zeynep et al. (2000) found through empirical research that the cultural dimension they summarized was significantly related to the practice of human resource management. Viewpoint 2: Buckleya et al. (200 1) think that the practice of human resource management can make the organization develop into an organization with strong ethics more easily; Desler (1994) found that the corporate culture that encourages employees to work hard for the enterprise can be established through two human resource management practices: communication with employees and participation of various employees in plans. McAfee et al. (2002) thinks that four human resource management policies, such as employee placement, training, salary and evaluation, have great influence on corporate culture.

Viewpoint 3: McAfee et al. (2002) thinks that there is a * * * relationship between corporate culture and human resource management policies; Lismen et al. (2004) confirmed that human resource management and corporate culture can reinforce each other, and can enhance enterprise differences and improve enterprise performance. Although there are different views on the influence relationship, all scholars basically agree that corporate culture should match human resource management. For example, Lismen et al. (2004) confirmed that some dimensions of corporate culture interact with human resource management practices, thus affecting company performance; McAfee et al. (2002) thinks that keeping corporate culture consistent with human resource management policies is the prerequisite for the success of supply chain strategy. ...

On the research of corporate culture and human resource management, Chinese scholars mainly adopt qualitative analysis, mainly focusing on the following aspects: the role of corporate culture in human resource management (2003), the role of human resource management in corporate culture maintenance (2006) and change (2005); Introducing corporate culture into human resource management (Shao Penglai, 2005; Cai,, 2006), Matching of Human Resource Management Policies, Strategies and Corporate Culture (,2005; Ding Min, 2006); The influence of China culture on human resource management (Huang Jing, 2002; Lee Eon Pinghe Weng Yanjuan, 2003); The evolution mechanism of corporate culture and its influencing factors (Xing Yiqun, Ye Wanghai, 2006), the same trend of contemporary corporate culture evolution (Xie Yongping, 2005; Chen Xiaoxue, 2005). China scholars seldom make quantitative analysis. Huang Xiaojun (2002) compared the influence of corporate culture on human resource management with an empirical method, and thought that the difference of corporate culture among different systems affected the deviation of human resource management strategies. Generally speaking, domestic research has attached great importance to the influence of human resource management on corporate culture, but most of them use qualitative methods for analysis and rarely use quantitative methods for exploration and verification.

Verb (abbreviation of verb) H-H model

In China, the vast majority of enterprises do not have a special corporate culture department and corporate culture specialist, and some enterprises have not even formed the most basic core concepts. However, every enterprise has its own corporate culture. No matter whether the enterprise attaches great importance to it or ignores it completely, the corporate culture has been accompanied by the growth of the enterprise from the first day of its establishment until its demise. In fact, most enterprises did not formally and scientifically create their own corporate culture, but unconsciously formed their own culture. In fact, in the process of human resource management, these enterprises have cultivated the spirit of the enterprise, formed the system of the enterprise, guided the behavior of the enterprise, determined the material of the enterprise, and naturally formed their own unique corporate culture.

Although most enterprises do not systematically create corporate culture, they naturally form their own unique culture in the process of enterprise management. Undoubtedly, human resource management has played a central role in this process. For this kind of enterprises, Song Lianke put forward the concept of "enterprise culture based on human resource management" in 2007. The enterprise culture based on human resource management refers to the enterprise culture created by human resource management as the main means in practice after the long-term advocacy of the core figures and the recognition of all members in a certain social and cultural environment.

Building a harmonious corporate culture is the demand of the whole society. With the help of human resource management, this goal can be achieved more simply, quickly and thoroughly. H-H model provides a theoretical basis for accomplishing this great mission. H-H model is a model to create a harmonious corporate culture through human resource management. Creating a harmonious corporate culture is the goal, and human resource management is the means.

There are many types of corporate culture, and harmonious corporate culture is one of them. Harmonious corporate culture is a corporate culture that meets the needs of contemporary China society. The definition, composition and characteristics of this culture need further analysis, which is an important topic at present.

The human resource management in this model mainly focuses on seven human resource management practices: human resource planning, job analysis, recruitment, selection, training and development, performance evaluation and salary and welfare.

How to build a harmonious corporate culture through seven human resource management practices, such as human resource planning, job analysis, recruitment, selection, training and development, performance appraisal, salary and welfare, is the core content of H-H model and an important problem to be solved by the model.

Answer: Zheng Shukun 2007- 12-07 06:36:08.0 After reading Mr. Zheng's detailed exposition, he suddenly had an idea. Experts, do you think it is possible to try to formulate a formula to measure the quality of corporate culture? This is more convenient to operate.

I personally think that the state and effect of corporate culture in the company can better represent the corporate culture of this company than the core concept put forward by the boss. Because one represents the actual state achieved through leadership propaganda, system construction and employee understanding, and the other represents the direction they want to advocate.

{[Company employees' job satisfaction (job content, working hours, working methods and remuneration) * job satisfaction weight]+[company profit * company profit weight]}/[number of employees in the company/number of first-level departments in the company].

The basic idea is that the effect of corporate culture is directly proportional to employees' job satisfaction, directly proportional to the company's profits, and inversely proportional to the number of employees. After all, people's ideas are too complicated, and the organization will be flat if there are more departments, which should be conducive to the promotion of corporate culture. Among them, the weight reflects the company boss's understanding and tendency of each element.

This formula has no rigorous theoretical basis or mathematical statistics basis, but an immature thing that pops up in my mind.

I just think that if there are such figures every year, can we monitor the influence of corporate culture on the company?