| Annotation: | Methods. The methodology of the study is based on such general scientific and specific methods as analysis and synthesis – in determining the type and comparing the characteristics of corporate culture; graphical analysis – in building a profile of corporate culture of an industrial enterprise; statistical methods – in assessing and calculating the corporate culture rating; expert evaluation – in assessing the level of development of corporate culture of an enterprise. Results. On the basis of the Cameron and Quinn methodology, the level of development of corporate culture is assessed and the type of culture of the industrial enterprise «GRAND» is determined. The most significant characteristics of the enterprise, specifics of the style of leaders-managers and personnel management, elements of connectivity, strategic goals and directions of activity, as well as indicators of its success are evaluated. A typological analysis is carried out and a profile of corporate culture is built, which reflects its current state and its state in the future. Attention is focused on measures to improve the corporate culture of the enterprise in the future, aimed at achieving longterm economic results and innovative development of the enterprise. Novelty. The main stages and tools for quantitative assessment of the corporate structure of enterprise on the basis of the Cameron and Quinn methodology has been substantiated. An assessment of the level of development of corporate culture has been carried out on the example of a specific industrial enterprise. Measures aimed at improving the corporate culture of the enterprise under consideration in the context of ensuring more efficient management and innovative development in the future are proposed. Practical value. The results of the study are of an applied nature, since understanding the algorithm and procedure for applying the methodology for assessing corporate culture on the example of a particular industrial enterprise allows choosing the most accurate tools for its monitoring in the real economic environment. |
| Literature: | - 1. Smiesova, V.L., & Kovtun, N.V. (2022). Market conjuncture and microeconomic aspects of innovation management. Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution «Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology». (1), 71-76. Retrieved from http://ek-visnik.dp.ua/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2022-1/Smiesova.pdf. DOI: 10.32434/2415-3974-2022-15-1-38-47
- 2. Smiesova V.L., Fedorova, N.Ye., & Pobyva, V.O. (2020). Innovatsii yak osnova sotsialno-ekonomichnoho rozvytku krain svitu. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu, Ser. : Mizhnarodni ekonomichni vidnosyny ta svitove hospodarstvo, (31), 104-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2413-9971/2020-31-17.
- 3. Ackoff, Russell L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or be Planned For. Wiley.
- 4. Bala, O.I., Mukan, O.V., & Bala, R.D. (2010). Pryntsypy korporatyvnoi kultury pidpryiemstva: sutnist ta vydy. Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu «Lvivska politekhnika», (682), 11-15.
- 5. Shein, E. (2003). Organizational Psychology. 3- rd Edition. London: Prentice-Hall.
- 6. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnostics and change of organizational culture. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 242 p.
- 7. Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. (2004). 1st. SAGE Publications, 29 April 2004.
- 8. Denison Consulting. (2022). Denison's methodology for diagnosing organisational culture. Re- trieved from http /www.denisonconsulting.com.
- 9. Ovcharenko, M.I., & Cherviakova, S.V. (2013). Metodychne zabezpechennia otsinky stanu korporatyvnoi kultury pidpryiemstva. Marketynh i menedzhment innovatsii, (2), 130-141.
- 10. Stepanova, L.V., & Tuzhylkina, O.V. (2017). Korporatyvna kultura: sutnist ta teoretychni pidkhody doslidzhennia. Naukovyi visnyk Poltavskoho universytetu ekonomiky i torhivli, Ser. : Ekonomichni nauky, (4), 167-172.
- 11. Pryimak, N. (2019). Identyfikatsii typu korporatyvnoi kultury pidpryiemstva shchodo spryiniattia zmin. Visnyk Ternopilskoho natsionalnoho ekonomichnoho universytetu, (2), 113-122.
- 12. Senyk, Yu.I. (2022). Analiz stanu korporatyvnoi kultury molokopererobnoho pidpryiemstva Ukrainy. Innovation and Sustainability, (4), 232-239. https://doi.org/10.31649/ins.2022.4.232.239
- 13. Zelich V.V. (2017). Rol ta mistse korporatyvnoi kultury ta yii vplyv na rozvytok pidpryiemstva. Infrastruktura rynku, Issue 6, 21-25.
- 14. Oleksenko, Ya.A. (2019). Sotsialno-ekonomichnyi zmist ta peredumovy stanovlennia korporatyvnoi kultury na pidpryiemstvi. Visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu. Ser. Ekonomichni nauky, (33), 117-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2307-8030/2019-33-23.
- 15. Pylypenko, H.M., & Lytvynenko, N.I. (2015). Ukrainskaia mentalnost v koordinatakh issledovatelskoy programmy G. Hofsteda. Ekonomichnyy visnyk NHU, (2), 14-22.
|
Archive