This paper explores the relationship between the structure and culture of an organization. The starting assumption is that organizational structure and organizational culture impact each other, and that there is a causal relationship due to which the agreement of the two components of organization leads to better performance. First, the mechanism through which organizational culture impacts the design of organizational structures and the manner in which organizational structure affects the maintenance, strengthening, or changing of organizational culture is explained at the conceptual level. Then, based on the known classifications of organizational structure and culture, they are put into a relationship of direct mutual interdependence. This is done by generating hypotheses about the agreement of particular types of organizational culture and particular types of organizational structure.

In the thirty-years-long research of organizational culture, two mutually opposed methodological approaches have emerged: objectivistic quantitative and subjectivistic-qualitative. These two approaches are based on opposite ontological and epistemological assumptions: they include different types of research, and use opposite, quantitative vs. qualitative, methods of research. Each of the methodological approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. For this reason a hybrid approach emerges as a legitimate choice in organizational culture research methodology. It combines elements of both subjectivistic and objectivistic methodological approaches, according to the goals, content, and context of the research and preferences of the researcher himself/herself. Since it is possible to combine the two principal methodological approaches in various ways, there are several possible hybrid methodologies in organizational culture research. After the review of objectivistic quantitative and subjectivistic-qualitative methodological approaches, one of possible hybrid approaches in the research of organizational culture is presented in this paper

Organizational culture, through its assumptions, values, norms and symbols, determines the way in which the members of an organization perceive and interpret the reality within and around their organization, as well as the way they behave in that reality. For this reason we may assume that organizational culture has an impact on the way in which an organization changes, and that matching of organizational culture and change strategy will improve the efficiency of the change process. In this paper specific hypotheses about the causal relationship between certain types of organizational culture and certain change strategies are formulated. Types of organizational culture are differentiated according to Handy’s and Trompenaars’ classifications. Organizational change strategies have been differentiated according to previous work of Chin & Benne but one more strategy has been added. Classifications of both the organizational cultures and of the organizational change strategies are based on the same criteria of differentiation: distribution of power in an organization and orientation toward relationships or tasks. For this reason it is possible to formulate hypotheses about the causal relationship between certain types of organizational cultures and certain types of organizational change strategies. Thus, eight hypotheses are formulated in this paper, relating particular change strategies with particular types of organizational culture

The paper explains the impact of organizational culture on employees? job satisfaction. Organizational culture, through its values and norms, shapes an organization?s internal context and thus impacts different elements, including job satisfaction. The paper develops two theoretical explanations of organizational culture?s impact on job satisfaction, which are verified through empirical research on a sample of 324 employees from 16 companies in Montenegro. The first theoretical explanation starts with the assumption that organizational culture impacts job satisfaction by harmonizing its values and norms with specific types of employee needs, while the second starts with the assumption that organizational culture impacts job satisfaction based on the content of its values and norms, regardless of the employees? needs. The research shows that employees? job satisfaction level systematically and significantly varies in different organizational culture types, proving that organizational culture is a job satisfaction factor; and that organizational culture does not impact the job satisfaction level by harmonizing with employee needs but through the content of its values and norms. It also shows that the level of job satisfaction is highest in task culture, followed by power culture, and lowest in role culture.

Starting from the axioms of consistency, stability, contingency, and configuration, research on organizational structure, culture, control, leadership, and change management strategy has shown that their typical configurations, or models, can be differentiated according to the same two criteria: distribution of power and dominant organizational dimension. On the one hand there are models of structure, culture, control, leadership, and change management strategy that are based on an unequal, or authoritarian, distribution of power within organizations, while on the other hand there are models that are based on democratic, or equal, distribution of power. Also, on the one hand there are models of structure, culture, control, leadership, and change strategy that are based on work structure and tasks, while on the other hand there are models of these organizational components that are based on social structure, people, and their relationships. Harmonization of typical configurations of organizational structure, culture, control, leadership, and change strategy occurs due to the harmonization of the differentiation criteria. Based on this harmonization, four organizational models have been identified as typical configurations of structure, culture, control, leadership, and change strategy: the autocratic, bureaucratic, innovative, and task models. Each of these models is effective in a different environmental contingency.