Did they get the nearly the same wage?

Good question, Vadims! Applying economic theory to this case hasn't occurred to me for a long time. Either way, I believe the retailer with the "non-social" employees payed a little more. My hourly wage increased by 8.8% of its former value after I moved from the "social" to the "non-social" retailer. But I was the only shipper-receiver in both companies. While everyone who surrounded me were sales people. And I never managed to figure out the average difference in hourly wages between the sales people of these two companies, because all wages were confidential. However, if I remember correctly, the sales people of the "non-social" retailer received 2% commission on top of an hourly wage, while those in the "social" retailer received 3% (which didn't prevent them from socializing with me or with each other even while getting shoes for the customer). Also, most of the sales people in the "non-social" retailer did nothing when there were no customers (even though there is always some helpful work that can be found) despite presumably being payed more. So I doubt that the higher hourly wages, which they were presumably payed, had any effect on their behaviour.

I believe its a case of cultural stagnation. Wage may not have the same effect on all the people and will depend on the their perception of the wage. Every person attaches a different amount of importance to money which can be attributed to various reasons since his childhood. The employees of both the stores exhibit the organizational culture as they have experienced. As far as the managers are concerned, u mentioned that they at least on average, "obeyed" the "socialization culture" of their organization inspite of being more preoccupied with work than with socializing, so it could be said that the workload on them might have been a reason for them to be less socializing.

I think you need to look into the mandate that went in before hiring the employees. What was the kind of employees that the organization was looking out for and why? If the behaviour is consistent across stores then probably the organization looked for people who were similar. If so why choose people who are not "Sociable" amongst themselves and with new comers? Perhaps that would give a clue as to the behaviour in question. --Just a thought...

I would be very cautious about your assumption that "there were no apparent differences in their personalities ( which would presumably be shaped by the culture of their respective organizations) from one shoe retailer to the other". Personality psychology tells us that while "behavior" might well be influenced by the organizational environment, one's personality is much more durable --especially at middle age. Most of my psychological consulting experience has been within high technology organizations in Silicon Valley, and as you described your scenario, I was substituing two different software companies I know well. In this case, it is clear that the CEO and executive team have, through their public personas, through the ways they lead and manage managers in their respective organizations, and in the way they engage with customers, established radically different organizational cultures. One of these organizations is well-known for taking a more research-oriented and conservative approach to software innovation, a more careful and methodical approach to selecting, developing and promoting employees, and engaged with its customers through a very consciously-created set of "ecosystems". The other organization is headed by a very grandiose, blunt and arrogant figure," expects new hires to "hit the ground running" without much of an onboarding process, and has been regarded for many years as shipping software with many bugs (and thereby reaping large revenue through software support contracts with customers).

As a consultant, I have personally been treated very professionaly and gently by clients from the former organization, and quite harshly, directly and impersonally by clients at the latter company. Colleagues in client sales as well other consultants I know have had the same experience. So in your case, I would examine the behavior, personas and statements of those on the top leadership teams of the two organizations. I would also think that after many years within this organizational culture, those who survive will tends to mimic or embrace the styles of those at the top. It would be interesting to observe the behavior of those who manage the individuals with whom you have had contact, to see if they have styles that match what you have observed among their direct reports.

I think i agree with David's analysis partially. What is the mandate and culture at the top percolates below... which cannot be helped. But what is surprising is that both types of cultures are doing well (company profits wise). It would be assumed that the company/retailer who is more social and outgoing to its clients would do better than its counterpart. But you say that both are equally good? Its an interesting thing which needs further investigation.... please do tell us your findings... very interested to know! :)

Thanks for the sent mailed qoustion, two employees are deffer each other. They're showing defferent performance . They have to able gets position on promotion.

Thanks for this article. I think that the diferrence present due to the types of personality of employees

But the difference caused because of the difference in the personality of employees could not have been generalised and the results would have been varied and then the dilemma wouldnt have been there because it would have been evident. Its the behaviour of the group as a whole which is a an issue of concern as there should have been something which could have influenced them to behave in such a way. Individual behaviour has a very large scope and so it could not be generalised...

This reads to me as a classic case of organizational culture and leadership (see Schein's Organizational Culture and Leadership, several publication editions beginning around the late 1980's or early 1990's). Informal social structures exist at the organizations, and each informal system rewards and reinforces particular ways of doing business and relating to others. I would hesitate to describe one culture as worse than another; I can only rely upon my own subjective preferences, and decide which culture I was more comfortable in.

There are other economic models which apply, in that leaders (who will always informally reinforce a particular way of socializing) are typically paid more than non-leaders. Schein's assumption is that the founders of an organization - and all leaders that follow - are the initial shapers of organizational culture, and the employee groups within the organization are influenced by the role the leaders play both formally and informally.

Wow, you guys are great. So many comments, all within 24 hours. I am not ignoring you. I am just really busy working for the "social" retailer (one of the two contrasted in my narrative) this week. I rejoined them for the holidays. I've got a lot to say about your comments. So I'll do it when I'll have a day off. Thanks for participating.

So I’ve had a short day at work today and I am off until Monday because I’ve managed to finish all the work for the week in 3.5 days. So here we go. I will first make a general address of you guys’ comments, followed by specific responses to some of your comments; and I’ll finish off by presenting evidence which challenges the common theoretical view displayed by most of you in your comments. Please don’t take any of my comments personally, as they are not intended to offend anybody, only to get my point across.

Possibly due to the fact that I failed to express myself clearly (though I believe I did the best I could), many of you seem to have misunderstood some of the information I provided and ended up making statements inconsistent with it. So I urge all of you to carefully reread my narrative and analyse various groups of sentences for most likely meanings. Also, some of you appear to have gotten the impression that my narrative describes contrasting ways of how employees socialize with their customers. And this is certainly not the case. In fact, I cannot assess such behavior as most of my work was not done on the sales floor. All I was describing is the contrast between how the employees of the two companies socialize with each other.

Response to a part of Mr. Pratik’s first comment:

Please elaborate on your statement: “I believe it’s a case of cultural stagnation.” What part of organizational culture, in your view, is stagnating and in what way, and how is it related to my narrative?

Response to a part of Dr. Shankar’s first comment:

It would definitely be interesting to look at the official hiring guidelines of the two companies. But I doubt it would be of any help. Here is a relevant passage from my narrative which shows why I think so: “The store managers could have purposely selected employees with great or little interest for socializing at work. But such qualities are hard to see and can easily be hidden during an interview. But even if that was possible, it is unclear why that would be done. In neither of the retailers was there any official support or condemnation of employee socialization, nor did the store managers of either of the two retailers support or oppose it.” Either way though, in virtue of not being a part of the management team, it would be very difficult for me to access such guidelines.

Response to a part of Mr. Gerard’s comment:

I must say I used the term “personality” in a rather loose way and meant by it only the outward behavior displayed by the store managers.

A number of you brought up an interesting argument, namely that the leaders of organizations create, reinforce, and shape the cultures of their organizations. Whatever may be the case in other industries or corporate levels, based on my experience of working for 5 North American retailers in their retail outlets, I am fairly confident that, aside from specifically enacted policies, the leaders of North American retailers have virtually no effect on the relations that take place among the employees in their retail outlets. In fact, most of the employees of North American retail outlets (at least when the company in question is large) know absolutely nothing about the behavior, personas, or statements of the leaders of the retailer that employs them. So there can be no direct effect.

As far as the “top to bottom trickle effect” goes, here are my relevant observations: What I called, in my narrative, the “social” retailer, at one point, had a fairly sociable district manager (for the stores of the whole city). His boss (who was responsible for the whole province, I figure) was also just as sociable, and so was the manager for all of western Canada. Later the district manager was replaced by an equally sociable manager of the city’s largest store, while the “provincial” manager was replaced by a surprisingly socially repulsive, non-social, somewhat nasty man. But that was a clear exception. The man who later replaced him, appeared to me to be so social, outgoing, and friendly that when he showed up, for the first time, at the store where I was working, I assumed he was a new sales associate who was trying hard to “fit in”.

I don’t believe this confirms anything though, as the district manager of the “non-social” retailer was also so social, outgoing, and friendly that I thought for quite some time that she was someone from the head office and belonged to a totally separate hierarchy (most retailers have a number of such separate specialists with their own hierarchies). The vice-president of operations (her boss – this was a rather small retailer) on the other hand, was clearly socially repulsive and non-social. But the owner himself, whom I also met (most likely because he was clearly “hands –on” when it came to taking care of his company; e.g. he frequently showed up at different stores to check up on managers), decided to strike a friendly conversation (not related to my work) with me, when he first saw me while happening to pass by my work area (i.e. he could simply ignore me and walk past; there was nothing necessitating him being in my work area).