3. Measures and HypothesesThe measu

3. Measures and Hypotheses
The measures for this study are corporate culture and organizational commitment. The study seeks to examine the relationship between the two variables, with corporate culture viewed as the independent variable while organizational commitment is viewed as the dependent variable.
3.1 Corporate Culture
The definition of corporate culture, initially focused on distinguishing levels of corporate culture and classifying culture as strong or weak cultures (Handy, 1976; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Many definitions of corporate culture gave primacy to the cognitive components suchas assumptions, beliefs, and values (Denison, 1990; Handy, 1993; Mclean and Marshal, 1993). Other definitions include behaviours and artifacts, leading to acommon distinction between the visible and the hidden levels of corporate culture (Schein, 1985).
There are two perspectives in understanding corporate culture, the symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969; Coolgy, 1922; Mead, 1934) and the social – anthropological perspective (Kluckhohn, 1951). The symbolic interactionist perspective view the exchange of symbols as the basis for the shared meaning for a group of social actors. Recognizing and using these symbols entails developing a ‘self’ defined in terms of culturally specified symbols. Stemming from this perspective myths (Eliade, 1959), archetypes (Mitroft, 1984), and stories and ideologies (Starbuck, 1982) are often useful in explaining objectively organizational features as they embody and articulate the identity of organizational members. The socialanthropological perspective view culture as socially constructed. The two perspectives have taken a contingency approach (Lawrence and Lorch, 1967) that argue that different environmental conditions give rise to and are consistent with different patterns of behaviour and cultures within organizations.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

3. các biện pháp và giả thuyếtCác biện pháp cho nghiên cứu này là văn hóa doanh nghiệp và tổ chức cam kết. Nghiên cứu nhằm mục đích kiểm tra mối quan hệ giữa hai biến, với văn hóa doanh nghiệp được xem như là biến độc lập trong khi tổ chức cam kết được xem như là phụ thuộc vào biến. 3.1 công ty văn hóaĐịnh nghĩa của văn hóa doanh nghiệp, ban đầu tập trung vào phân biệt cấp độ của công ty văn hóa và phân loại văn hóa là nền văn hóa mạnh hay yếu (Handy, 1976; Peters và Waterman, 1982). Nhiều định nghĩa của văn hóa doanh nghiệp đã cho tính ưu Việt để nhận thức thành phần suchas giả định, niềm tin và giá trị (Denison, 1990; Handy, 1993; McLean và nguyên soái, 1993). Định nghĩa khác bao gồm hành vi và đồ tạo tác, dẫn đến acommon khác biệt giữa các hiển thị và ẩn các đơn vị văn hóa doanh nghiệp (Schein, 1985).There are two perspectives in understanding corporate culture, the symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969; Coolgy, 1922; Mead, 1934) and the social – anthropological perspective (Kluckhohn, 1951). The symbolic interactionist perspective view the exchange of symbols as the basis for the shared meaning for a group of social actors. Recognizing and using these symbols entails developing a ‘self’ defined in terms of culturally specified symbols. Stemming from this perspective myths (Eliade, 1959), archetypes (Mitroft, 1984), and stories and ideologies (Starbuck, 1982) are often useful in explaining objectively organizational features as they embody and articulate the identity of organizational members. The socialanthropological perspective view culture as socially constructed. The two perspectives have taken a contingency approach (Lawrence and Lorch, 1967) that argue that different environmental conditions give rise to and are consistent with different patterns of behaviour and cultures within organizations.