\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Exploring Institutional Culture (Existing and Preferred) at Private University: In Case of Admas University},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2015-05-15 (revised: 15 May 2015)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2015-05-15}
\title{Exploring Institutional Culture (Existing and Preferred) at Private University: In Case of Admas University}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Mulatu Dea  Lerra}

             \affil[1]{  Wolaita Sodo University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 14 April 2015 Accepted: 4 May 2015 Published: 15 May 2015}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The objective of this study is to explore intuitional culture of private higher institutions in case of Admas University. This research had a hybrid design of both qualitative and quantitative type to fully address the stated objectives and secure the validity and reliability of the finding and it is mainly descriptive research design type. Stratified sampling technique was instrumental to select sample respondents to fill the questionnaire. The whole study populations have been classified into three groups (management, employee and student). Out of which, 11 instructors in the employee category, 5 managers from department heads and administrative staffs and 14 students were selected through random sampling method. Besides, the researcher has implemented convenient sampling method to get the opinion and response of the 4 instructors and 5 students in the informal interview session. Spiraling merits and amplifying remedies for weaknesses is the key to walk in success track. As the current state of organizational culture reveals, it?s possible to say that AUC has a culture which is not perceived equally in a similar fashion by all members of the college. Besides, the paradoxical views of individuals particularly that of employees and management indicate the possible misunderstanding and disparity exist in the overall organizational culture of the college. This might in return has a negative effect on the performance and productivity of employees. Given the current situation, the college has to: invest much time and effort on providing awareness creation and information exchange sessions for all members of the college on culture and related matters; striving to create conducive work environment and relationship among members in the college might reduce the information gap exist between them and the antagonistic view held particularly by employees on managers.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{organizational culture, strategy, existing culture, preferred cultur e.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
uccessful company in the current environment is company that has open culture to use wide opportunity created due to technology change, social lifestyle or force from competing company with new idea, new creativity and innovation. One of the competing tools available for organizations in these regard is their organization culture. The central issue associated with organizational culture is its linkage with Author: Lecturer at Wolaita Sodo University, Department of Educational planning and Management. e-mails : lerramulee2010@gmail.com, mulatudea83@yahoo.com organizational performance. The driving and winning management culture takes calculated risk by changing organization development dimensions by tangling among environment and customer. Assessing organizational culture perpetually and come across with sound strategies as per the prevailing environmental conditions is a focus of today's organizations including those in the academic sector.\par
Organization culture might have different faces among individuals found in the entity. Careful analysis of dominant culture is apparent for having smooth work environment. In these regard researcher made a novice assessment on AU organizational culture and forward possible interpretation on the collected facts. 
\section[{II. Statement of the Problem}]{II. Statement of the Problem}\par
A problem usually implies unanswered question in the researcher mind or controversy or difference of opinion exists \hyperref[b2]{(Best, 2003)}. Every instructors in privately owned education institutions raised different questions in association with their organization culture and climate.\par
The prevalence of integrated, transparent and career oriented personnel management system (hiring, training, educating, apprising, promoting retiring and firing), allocation of benefits and procedures used to allocate this benefits, leadership orientation as well as quality of relationship, staff stability and commitment, supervision pattern and practices are under question to keep staff welfare and stability. It is impossible to discharge instructional responsibility within ill organization culture, polluted climate and unfair autocratic leadership style. In relation to this, several studies have found that work place (organization climate) and culture influences the general life satisfaction and this can act as an important influential factor for teacher's psychological health and quality of education  {\ref (Moreno, 1950)}.\par
Management style, organization culture and employee attitude may be the flesh of organizations, therefore a general improvement to the climate or relationship and attitudes is sought to achieve a broadening of employee commitment and production quality trained and oriented individuals \hyperref[b22]{(Shannon, 1995)}.\par
In general, educational institutions with weak organizational culture might be characterized by the following unhealthy factors, low degree of thrust, sprit and high disengagement, leaders are not genuine in their behavior, support and consideration is to lead are by instinct(not providing proper blend of structure and direction by being example), production emphasized close supervision, rules and regulation are characterized by aloofness or favoritism, high turnover tension, lack of job security, lack of higher objective held as value by individual to illicit and to motivate individual in essence belongingness, institutional need is prioritized rather than keeping balance between individual and organization, and finally there is no direction set for individual future career orientation.\par
These explicit problems may raise a researchable cause effect relationship which would lend themselves for further study and to test variables. To put in nutshell ill leadership behavior, high turnover tension, instructors negative assumptions to their institutions, non egalitarianism or aloofness in rules and regulation or benefit allocation lack of structured career orientation, production oriented close supervision and lack of commitment by the staff to the task at hand are the basic disorders of poor organization culture.\par
Given these facts, it is reasonable to assess the current cultural typology of AU and check the type of culture dominantly exists in actual and preferred situation. To undergone the study in significant concern and to give directions to the research process then the following declarative statements clarified and basic questions were designed to see the state of organization culture at Admas University.\par
1. Which type of organizational culture does currently persist in Admass University? 2. How managers, employees and students label the present Admass University organizational culture? 3. What will be the preferred organizational culture for member of the university found at management, employee and student level? 4. What sort of informal values and norms held by managers, employees and students?\par
The above four comprehensive basic questions will give clear direction and destiny for the study and are to be tested as variable in the consecutive chapters. The leaders or the heads of the organization are considered to be mentors and perhaps even parent figures. The organization is held together by loyalty or tradition. Commitment is high. The organization emphasizes the long term benefit of human resources development and attaches great importance to cohesion and moral. Success is defined in terms of sensitivity to customers and concern for people. The organization places a premium on teamwork, participation and consensus. 
\section[{III. Review of Related Literature}]{III. Review of Related Literature}\par
ii. The Adhocracy Culture The dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work. People stick their necks out and take risks. The leaders are considered innovators and risk takers. The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to experimentation and innovation. The emphasis is on being on the leading edge. The organization's long-term emphasis is on growth and acquiring new resources. Success means gaining unique and new products or services. Being a product or service leader is important. The organization encourages individuals' initiatives and freedom.\par
iii. The Market Culture A result-oriented organization whose major concern is with getting the job done. People are competitive and goal-oriented. The leaders are hard drivers, producers and competitors. There are tough and demanding. The flue that holds the organization together is an emphasis on wining. Reputation and success are common concerns. The long term focus is on competitive actions and achievements of measurable goals and targets. Success is defined in terms of market share and penetration. Competitive pricing and market leadership are important. The organization style is harddriving competitiveness.\par
iv. The Hierarchy Culture A very formalized and structured place to work. Procedures govern what people do. The leaders pride themselves on being food coordinators and organizers who are efficiency-minded. Maintaining a smoothrunning organization is most critical. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together. The long-term concern is on stability and performance with efficient, smooth operations. Success is defined in terms of dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low cost. The management of employees is concerned with secure employment and predictability. So as to make the research comprehensive and forward valid and reliable information to final readers, the researcher were used the following instruments, design options and procedures. 
\section[{Participants of the Study}]{Participants of the Study}\par
Since the study has aimed at evaluating the culture of AU, the study population comprised of those branches found throughout Addis Ababa. To make the research manageable and achieve the desired result, 1 campus of the total 3 study population has been selected as a sample through simple random sampling technique. Here the assumption is that all campuses have almost similar type of culture, hence simple random sampling method will be the appropriate tool in order for the study populations to have equal chance of being selected as a sample. The researcher used stratified sampling technique to select sample respondents to fill the questionnaire. Since the university college has 50 instructors, 12 department heads, 20 administrative workers with more than 380 students in the three campuses found in Addis Ababa it is not quite productive to use other probability sampling tools. Thus the whole study populations have been classified into three groups (management, employee and student). Out of which, 11 instructors in the employee category, 5 managers from department heads and administrative staffs and 14 students were selected through random sampling method.\par
Besides, the researcher were implemented convenient sampling method to get the opinion and response of the 4 instructors and 5 students in the informal interview session.\par
To increase the reliability of the research finding, the researcher were used informal interview, observation, questionnaire and document analysis data gathering instruments. The major instrument used in the study was the Cameron/Quinn, organizational culture assessment tool. The researcher chose this instrument since it has been provided with questions under six organization cultural dimensions which in return can make the analysis rich. Besides it's a tool with sound analytical method to clearly classify certain organizations culture in one of the dominant types.\par
The strategic document of the college has also been used to evaluate the formal culture exist in the situations. Informal interview with four instructors and five students has been conducted to have the required information regarding the current and preferred organizational culture. The interview questions are semi structured to raise relevant side issues on culture matters. Generally, the interview output has been used to triangulate the results found from other sources and checks the informal culture found in the college. The observation made on the interactions among employees and the work environment of the college also used to add something on the validity of this mini research. 
\section[{V. Data Analysis and Presentation}]{V. Data Analysis and Presentation}\par
To come across suitable presentation of information and valid generalization of the findings, the researcher were used both qualitative and quantitative mechanisms of data analysis. 
\section[{a) Quantitative Data Analysis and Presentation}]{a) Quantitative Data Analysis and Presentation}\par
Regarding the quantitative methods, the researcher were employed both descriptive and inferential statistical tools to analyze and present numerical data. Regarding the descriptive type, frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation value of figures were appropriate tools of presentation. Meanwhile, to see the collective difference in means of management, employee and student variables one way ANOVA with 5\% level of significance has been used. The test is appropriate since the researcher has made analysis on the difference of mean values found in those three categories.\par
In assessing the reliability of scales used in the questionnaire a coefficient of internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha methodology. The results for the statements contained in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument for both current and preferred situations are shown in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}.  
\section[{b) Qualitative Data Analysis and Presentation}]{b) Qualitative Data Analysis and Presentation}\par
Likewise, the researchers have used qualitative data analysis tool for those information collected via interview, and observation. To discover patterns, ideas and explanations, three step analysis processes has been employed. Data organization and summary: collected data were categorized into workable units like norm, values, and attitudes. Besides, the researchers comment and interpretation on what was collected directly from study participants was part of the data organization part of the analysis phase to further extend thematically explanation of data. Data interpretation: the researcher will take a close look on variables and relationships of categories via the summarized information to grasp generalizable fact in interpreted what it means. Subsuming, combining, and creating new categories of information to come across logically sensible findings were the efforts being made at this phase of qualitative data analysis.\par
Generally, the collected and analyzed information via different tools have been presented by using of tables and text. The triangulation of facts from different sources (especially of qualitative and quantitative) has also been carefully checked to maintain the reliability of the paper and produce concrete result. 
\section[{VI. Presentation and Analysis of Data a) Characteristics of Respondents}]{VI. Presentation and Analysis of Data a) Characteristics of Respondents}\par
As it has been clearly stated in the methodology part of the paper, the team has distributed and successfully collected 30 questionnaires for students, management and instructors of the college to have adequate information regarding its cultural typology. Below are the demographic characteristics of the respondents in terms of working position, year of service, academic rank, working status, sex and marital status. Since the sample size is less that hundred, the team has opted to put figures in number than using percentages and the like. As the table shows, 5 respondents from the college management, 11 from employees, particularly from instructors and 14 from students were selected to fill the questionnaire. Out of which, 8 students, 5 employees, and 2 management personnel are females and the rest participants in both three categories were male respondents. This shows that the study was more or less considerate of both sex categories from the three work level clusters. 
\section[{VII. Culture Assessment -Current Situation}]{VII. Culture Assessment -Current Situation}\par
The current cultural typology of Admass University gazes as multifaceted and seems has different interpretation among those theoretically poles apart members of the college. As the following table summarizes the information gained via Cameron/Quinn culture assessment tool in detail, those individuals working at different levels have different view on the current culture exist in the college As the table depicts, the highest mean (26.73) has been obtained in the clan culture type is from students category. The management group relatively scored higher mean (16.67) than employees (9.03) in this culture category. Totally 18.56 mean value with 29 (n-1) degree of freedom has been gripped from the analysis. The respective F values could also shows that the difference in mean of the three participant group is not merely by chance since it is far less and greater than 1.00.\par
Unlike to the clan one, different pool of values could be found in adhocracy culture typology. The highest mean (42.33) in this class was gained at management level. Contrary the other two list mean values i.e. 15.52 and 15.77 were achieved at employee and students category respectively. To this effect, a mean of 20.11 have been scored with 1.099 F value and 0.139 probability level.\par
Students mainly opt for the third category, market, to characterize the current dominant culture of the university. 38.87 were the mean value of their response while the other two groups also gave relatively higher rank for this culture type with 28.79 and 20.00 mean values in employee and management categories respectively. Such immense values made the total figure to be 32.03 with 1.004 F value and 0.418 probability level.\par
The last culture type, hierarchy, has also been ranked differently as a dominant type in the current AU working environment. Particularly employees' response had a mean value of 46.89, which is much higher than the previous figures scored at different culture types. Management level holders have also rated their culture under hierarchical category but at lesser mean value (21.00) than the prior ones. A mean value of 18.56 has also gained from students in this culture type. When we take a look on the total figure, 29.36 mean value under 29 degree of freedom with 0.754 F value and 0.584 probability level were obtained in hierarchical culture type.\par
However, in both four culture types, the respective Sig. values are greater than the critical value ( ) stated by the researchers, which is 0.05. Similarly the corresponding F values have been bouncing in between 0 and 2 but none of them foot on 1.00 and getting large enough either.\par
In the current AU situation, the highest F-value (2.601) with the corresponding probability level of 0.057 was scored at market culture type under management working level. Though it is not as such significant, the figures would indicate the existing significant difference in perception of the university culture among different work groups probably due to reasons other than chance. The following table summarizes the dominant culture type presented at different working level in the actual situation of AU. According to the summary table, adhocracy is currently the dominant culture at the management level of the university. On the other hand, hierarchical is the prominent category which possibly best characterizes the organizational culture of AU from the employee point of view. Contrary, students take the current culture as market type. The cumulative effect of these paradoxical perceptions finally end up with a mean value of 32.03, obtained from both group of respondents, and characterize the current dominant organizational culture of the university as market type. 
\section[{VIII. Culture Assessment -Preferred Situation}]{VIII. Culture Assessment -Preferred Situation}\par
Cameron/Quinn culture assessment tool do not wrap-up on analyzing the current culture type of a given organization. Rather it takes further step to know what is preferred to be there in the future. Since, the researcher were tried to fully functionalize the tool, they have asked their study participants to favor those types that those AU members aspire to see as a persistent and dominant culture in the tomorrows work environment. Accordingly, their response had such a look as it is presented in the following table.  The highest mean values, next to clan, were scored in adhocracy culture type. In this respect 28.17, 27.39, 20.67 mean value figures have been obtained from management, employee and student respondents respectively. A mean of 24.37, in 29 degree of freedom, 1.641 F value and 0.153 sig were a total point gained to magnify adhocracy as a dominant culture in the preferred university situation.\par
The other two culture types are almost detested and trigged to knock down in the aspired working environment. As indicator, the total mean obtained in the market category is 13.82 and employees' response mean in the same culture type is only about 8.88. Similar patter could also be inferred in hierarchy type with 11.49 a total mean value in the and particularly the least mean figure scored in the employee group, which is 4.68. The mean score obtained from students in both market and hierarchy culture is almost equivalent, that is 15.73 and 15.65 respectively. Regarding the management class, a mean of 19.33 in the market and 14.83 in the hierarchy types were found.\par
Similarly with the current dominant culture figures of the university, there is no less that 0.05 probability figure obtained from the analysis. It implies that the means do not differ more than would be expected by chance alone and differences between the means are not great enough to allow the researchers to say that they are different. The table below summarizes the dominant culture type preferred to be in AU at those different respondents group. As it can easily be inferred from the table, clan is the preferred culture type at all groups of respondents. An analysis the highest mean scores also shows, 51.32 have been obtained to show that the dominant culture type in the preferred situation of the university is clan. framework. These dimensions help researcher classify the cultural typology into factors relevant to contribute for the effectiveness of organizational goal attainment.\par
Here is the analysis based on information found in those cultural poles of AU. 
\section[{a) Dominant Characteristics}]{a) Dominant Characteristics}\par
This dimension of organizational culture covers the overall quality and characteristics of working environment. Respondents have rated their work place as a personal, controlled and structured, entrepreneurial, and results oriented type to finally come across the prevailing culture exist in those three levels of employment. As the table shows, adhocracy is the dominant current culture with the highest mean value of 40.00 in the management class of respondents. As per employees' response, however, the principal culture exists in terms of AU current organizational characteristics is hierarchical type (with the highest mean score of 46.82). Students on the other hand perceive the actual cultural typology so differently. Accordingly, the collected data reveals the highest mean score of 38.86 in the market type of dominant organizational culture. The cumulative effect of these individuals gave the highest mean rank 32.80 for market type as the present dominant culture type of AU based on its principal organizational characteristics.\par
On the other hand the analysis result gained in the preferred situation under the dominant characteristics pole of organizational culture cultural mend all class of respondents under one culture type, clan. Accordingly a mean of 37.00, 57.73, and 44.64 were obtained from management, employees and student kind of study participants respectively. In aggregate a mean score of 48.17 were found under clan type of organizational type in the preferred situation. 
\section[{b) Organizational Leadership}]{b) Organizational Leadership}\par
The other dimension of organizational culture is leadership. The following table summarizes the analysis result found from those responses on the innovativeness, aggressive, facilitating, mentoring, efficacy, efficiency and other relevant clones of organizational leadership.\par
In the current situation, the dominant culture exists among management staffs is adhocracy with a mean value of 41.00. On the other hand employees have inclined to label the current AU organizational culture as hierarchical (a mean value of 47.27). Similarly with dominant characteristics students' response on the leadership quality of the university confer market type of organizational culture with a mean value of 39.21. The entire figures finally divert the present organizational culture into market type (32.80 mean score) in the leadership dimension of the organizational culture.\par
What all members of the university aspire for the coming future is almost similar. Management with 42.00, employees with 58.18, students with 50.21, and totally the whole respondents with 51.77 mean values labeled their preferred organizational culture as clan type in terms of leadership. 
\section[{c) Management of Employee}]{c) Management of Employee}\par
According the responses gained, the current and preferred cultural environment of the university has different image in light of the management style of employees like usage of teamwork, driving competitiveness, conformity and the like. Similarly with the above two analysis, the mean effects were also scored in those three clans in management of employees dimensions. As of all groups preferred to have clan organizational culture with the mean of 48.60, the current situation is also dominated by market type with 32.63 mean score. Particularly managers label the present management style as adhocracy (39.00) while employees and students opted to make it hierarchical and market with a mean value of 47.27, and 39.21 respectively.\par
As matter of fact employees are those who score the highest mean (58.18) and the managers 37.00 and students 45.21 score to seek for clan type organizational culture under management of employee organizational cultural dimensions. 
\section[{d) Organizational Glue}]{d) Organizational Glue}\par
As one dimension, organizational glue is much concerned about factors that hold the organization together. Here loyalty and mutual trust, innovation and development, achievement and goal accomplishment, and the like are the citable ones. The following table summarizes the data obtained in this respect. In terms of organizational glue, the management group of respondents characterizes their college's culture as adhocracy with a mean value of 44.00. Hierarchical and market type of organizational cultures on the other hand have been also identified as a major cultural typologies with a mean value of 44.55 and 37.00 in the rest employee and students category of respondents respectively. All in all, market type of organizational culture is currently there in AU based on organizational glue dominant characteristics (a mean value of 30.93)\par
In the preferred environment both groups favor clan type with 40.00, 65.45, and 49.29 mean value in those management, employee and student categories respectively. The aggregate figure is 53.67. Here employees are still with the highest mean score. 
\section[{e) Strategic Emphasis}]{e) Strategic Emphasis}\par
The fifth category of dominant organizational characteristics is strategic emphasis. Here the point of concern is for digesting areas where the organization put much emphasis whether it is on human development, acquiring new resources creating new challenges, and/or maintaining permanence and stability. Below is the analysis of AU under those different working levels.\par
Adhocracy, hierarchical, and market types with 48.00, 49.55, and 40.79 mean values were the dominant current cultures found in management, employees, and students participant of the study. The cumulative highest mean value of 33.53 was obtained and characterizes the current cultural image of the university as market under strategic emphasis cultural dimensions. Clan, as usual, exists in the preferred situation as a dominant culture type for both kinds of respondents. The overall mean values of 44.00, 57.91, and 51.07 were obtained in this regard under clan cultural typology in management, employee, and students responses respectively. The total figure (mean value obtained is) 52.40.  f) Criteria of Success Development of human resources, teamwork, employees' commitment, having the most unique or newest products, winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition would be some of the criteria devised to measure success in its operation. This could also lead member to have and/or mend the organizational culture in some different form.\par
Accordingly, 42.00 in management category, 45.91 in employees' category, and 38.14 in students' area were the mean scores obtained to characterize the current culture as adhocracy, hierarchical and market type respectively in criteria of success paradigm. The total effect has made the culture market with a mean of 30.47. On the other hand all members choose to have clan culture with a scored mean value of 44.00, 60.45, 51.00 in both management, employee and student categories. The total mean value which makes the preferred culture clan under criteria of success dimension is 53.30.  
\section[{Analysis of the Result Gained through Document Analysis}]{Analysis of the Result Gained through Document Analysis}\par
One of the tools available to transfer the preferred and aspired organizational documents is through formal methods like organizational documents including policy, strategic document, procedures and other working manuals. Particularly strategic plan documents have a section for the organization to declare what it wants to be hold as values and norms by all members of the organization. Given this basic fact, the team has tried to secure some information about the formal values exist in the university.\par
According to the strategic document of AU, the university values customer satisfaction, quality and excellence, sprit of collaboration, involvement and transparency, secularity, equity, gender sensitivity, reliable partnership, academic freedom, diversification, expansion, and efficiency at the organizational level. These values are to be indulged in every employees mind set while they are doing every task on the behalf of the university and its management. Likewise, the brochures, bulletins and other formal communicating Medias preach those issues as a relevant and key success factors for the overall organizational effectiveness. In addition professional integrity and commitment, good governance, creativity and self initiation, competence, equal opportunity has some of the value elements been founded under individual employees. Anyone who is working with AU has been at least in paper respecting these values.\par
As the document revealed also, values both at organizational and individual levels are equally important and need due attention from both management, and employees angle to make the overall goals of the university realistic and attainable. Besides, the required image before the public is to be strengthened when the internal culture totally immense itself on the planned and desired one, like that of stated in the strategic document.\par
Finally, the document analysis was designed to take a look on those entertaining and extracurricular engagements of the university. In this regard graduation bulletins, occasional news letter, leaflets, and the like were addressed as much as the team can. However, as per the researcher reading, this documents had not the power to reflect the actual culture exist in the university. Rather they are almost copying what is already stated in the strategic document. All in all the values, norms , feelings and attitudes transmitted via these documents have their own effect, in one way or another, on the overall cultural image of the university. 
\section[{a) Analysis of the Result Gained Observation and Informal Interviews}]{a) Analysis of the Result Gained Observation and Informal Interviews}\par
Along with checking formal organizational documents, the researcher has made an informal talk with some members of university and observed its working atmosphere at those value, belief and norm dimensions of organizational cultural.\par
When I chat informally with some of the instructors, they are almost respecting some informal norms like respect the boss, enter the class lately, leave the class early, and wait for delayed salaries. They value also professional independence, career advancement, and just money/salary. As those instructors told as much of their friends have believed as their students are disrespectful and incompetent, their bosses are selfish and cruel, and they desperately need proper treatment. I have witnessed these since I have seen teachers when they bow the head for any passer by boss, get late to enter and early to leave their class and treat their students dictatorially to avert the happening of what they dislike, improper act.\par
As per the my observation students value acquiring certain qualification most than gaining the knowledge required to gain what they are looking for. They also hold an informal belief unconsciously like they don't need fierce reading and their monthly payment lead them to graduation, deserve appropriate care and treatment like any other customer, and have vital position to magnify or little the university image in the external environment.\par
I also tried to observe the university administration through both formal and informal fissures I have got to address them. According to the information I have got, good will/positive image, perpetual profit, acceptance and accreditation, and creation of competitive enterprise are those that the university management value most. They also respect giving emphasis to tasks, holding power at the top, and magnifying the status and reputation of the university as a norm. Besides, unconscious beliefs like the authority/owners deserve all the power, independent decision making, and respect from both students and the university management holds instructors. The interaction observed in the university. Olympia campus also manifests the issues roused above. The macchiato I had with instructors and students could whisper and witness what I have observed both in the university lounge and offices regarding the their culture. 
\section[{b) Summaries of Findings and the Dominant Culture Strength}]{b) Summaries of Findings and the Dominant Culture Strength}\par
As the above sections clearly presented, the current and preferred dominant culture of Admass University has different feature for those different members of the university. Though the analysis conducted in management, employees and student group of respondents reveal apparent disparity in the current situation of the university; both groups aspire and wish to have almost one kind of organizational culture their preferred situation. The following table summarized this figures.  Market type organizational culture is with the highest mean (32.24) and dominates the current situation of AU. On the other hand clan type is the dominant one in the preferred situation with 51.32 mean score.\par
As described earlier however, in both four culture types, the respective Sig. values are greater than the critical value ( ) stated by the researchers, which is 0.05. Thus the effects are found to be non-significant, then the differences between the means are not great enough to allow the researcher to say that they are different and no further interpretation is to be attempted either. Similarly the corresponding F values have been bouncing in between 0 and 2 but none of them foot on 1.00. Theoretically F-ratio can be thought of as a measure of how different the means are relative to the variability within each sample. The larger this value, the greater the likelihood that the differences between the means are due to something other than chance alone, namely real effects. If the difference between the means is due to only chance, that is, there are no real effects, and then the expected value of the F-ratio would be one (1.00). In the AU situation however, the highest F-value (1.955) with the corresponding probability level of 0.089 was scored at clan culture type under the preferred environment. Though it is not as such significant, the figures would indicate the existing significant difference in perception of the university culture among different work groups probably due to reasons other than chance. This might open the gate for further in depth analysis with large sample size.\par
Meanwhile, the analysis has been also triggered to each dimensions of organizational culture. In this respect, the entire current situation in light of the six dimensions failed under market type of organizational culture. Contrary, clan type was preferred in both areas in the coming AU work environment. The summarized figures of respondents mean score under the six organization dimensions both in the current and preferred situation is presented in the following table. These facts seem prevalent in the AU in light of the information gained through formal documents analysis and informal chat and observation with different members of the university. As it can easily be inferred from the above analysis, the management of the university agrees as they have adhocracy kind of culture in the current situation. This tendency is a complement of those values and other cultural elements found in the strategic and other documents of the university.\par
On the other hand what instructors speak out, for the researcher in their informal talk, supplement the analysis result of Cameron/Quinn tool with the highest mean score to label their university culture as a hierarchical type. Employees' informal norms, like respect the boss, enter the class lately, leave the class early, and the like might be and indicator for the existence of hierarchical culture as per instructors feeling.\par
Students have also scored a highest mean at market type of organizational structure. Some of the information, like concerning on achieving some professional qualification and taking themselves a respected customer as that of any other market place, grasped through observation and informal talks could validate the mean score and add on the reliability of the findings. The cumulative score of all the three categories finally make the organizational culture as market type. Exploring Institutional Culture (Existing and Preferred) at Private University: In Case of Admas University employees, the current hierarchy type of dominant culture may label AU as institute with weak organizational culture. However, a relative different interpretation would be inferred from the management side. Generally, the disparity of information and culture classification of various members of the university at least shows something wrong that is going in the university. Heterogeneity of group members, short time of group membership, dynamics of group membership, and little intensity of group experience among member would be the reason for the different figures found in the analysis. All in all the researcher can say the current organizational culture of the university is not strong but not to say it's weak. 
\section[{Global Journal of Human Social Science}]{Global Journal of Human Social Science} 
\section[{XI. Conclusion and Recommendations}]{XI. Conclusion and Recommendations}\par
Generally speaking, organizations have to take a close look on their organizational culture and make possible change to cope with environmental developments. In this regard, the evaluation on the organizational cultural typology of Admass University is versatile from managers, employees and students point of view. The following points summarize and conclude what the team has got in the assessment.\par
? As the highest mean score reveals the current organizational culture is dominated by market type and all category of respondents are aspiring to have clan culture the preferred situation. ? Particularly adhocracy, in the management group, hierarchical, in the employee group and market in the students group are the dominant cultures mean scores obtained in the separate analysis of respondents as per their working level in the university. 
\section[{?}]{?}\par
Regarding the analysis made on the six dimensions of organizational culture, market type dominate the current situation in all polar sides and clan particularly preferred to be installed in the future interaction of AU members. ? The informal talk and observations conducted in the college proof the fact gained through the analysis of the standard culture assessment tool. Meanwhile, the documents assessed back up the information particularly found in the responses of the management group of the study participants. ? The existing contradictory responses by the three groups of respondents indicate that something wrong is there in the actual cultural pitch of the university. Besides, the dominant type exist in employees' category, that is hierarchical , and the overall control of market type induce the researchers to say the AU doesn't currently have strong culture and not even be in the position to label it as weak. Spiraling merits and amplifying remedies for weaknesses is the key to walk in success track. As the current state of organizational culture reveals, it's possible to say that AU has a culture which is not perceived equally in a similar fashion by all members of the university. Besides, the paradoxical views of individuals particularly that of employees and management indicate the possible misunderstanding and disparity exist in the overall organizational culture of the AU. This might in return has a negative effect on the performance and productivity of employees. Given the current situation, the university has to:\par
? Invest much time and effort on providing awareness creation and information exchange sessions for all members of the university on culture and related matters. This might help build common understanding on the current cultural typology of the college on the building up of the preferred one. \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}}\end{figure}
    \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.26488372093023255\textwidth}P{0.347906976744186\textwidth}P{0.23720930232558138\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{of Internal Consistency Using}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Crombach's Alpha Methodology}\\
Culture\tabcellsep Reliability\tabcellsep Reliability\\
Type\tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep Coefficients\\
\tabcellsep for Current\tabcellsep for\\
\tabcellsep Situation\tabcellsep Preferred\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Situation\\
Clan\tabcellsep 0.95\tabcellsep 0.79\\
Adhocracy\tabcellsep 0.92\tabcellsep 0.53\\
Market\tabcellsep 0.88\tabcellsep 0.81\\
Hierarchy\tabcellsep 0.93\tabcellsep 0.85\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.19479166666666664\textwidth}P{0.47812499999999997\textwidth}P{0.17708333333333334\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep sex of respondents\tabcellsep \\
Female\tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep Total\\
Count\tabcellsep Count\tabcellsep Count\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05269168026101142\textwidth}P{0.05823817292006525\textwidth}P{0.19551386623164763\textwidth}P{0.12618270799347472\textwidth}P{0.11508972267536706\textwidth}P{0.05269168026101142\textwidth}P{0.1234094616639478\textwidth}P{0.12618270799347472\textwidth}}
Global Journal of Human Social Science\tabcellsep Culture type Clan Adhocracy\tabcellsep Working level Management Employee Student TOTAL Management Employee Student TOTAL\tabcellsep Mean 16.67 9.03 26.73 18.56 42.33 15.52 15.77 20.11\tabcellsep Std. dev 5.70 4.07 4.07 9.23 7.69 9.56 4.68 12.48\tabcellsep Df 4 10 13 29 4 10 13 29\tabcellsep F 1.519 0.387 0.480 1.864 0.883 1.112 2.052 1.099\tabcellsep Sig 0.229 0.855 0.790 0.104 0.511 0.366 0.363 0.139\\
\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 20.00\tabcellsep 4.92\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 2.601\tabcellsep 0.057\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 28.79\tabcellsep 8.12\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.738\tabcellsep 0.599\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 38.87\tabcellsep 5.12\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 0.809\tabcellsep 0.547\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 32.03\tabcellsep 9.59\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.004\tabcellsep 0.418\\
\tabcellsep Hierarchy\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 21.00\tabcellsep 6.71\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 0.991\tabcellsep 0.448\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 46.89\tabcellsep 11.79\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.206\tabcellsep 0.958\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 18.56\tabcellsep 6.12\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 1.519\tabcellsep 0.196\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 29.36\tabcellsep 16.07\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 0.754\tabcellsep 0.584\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: © 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US) -]} 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2230769230769231\textwidth}P{0.03076923076923077\textwidth}P{0.09230769230769231\textwidth}P{0.09230769230769231\textwidth}P{0.20769230769230768\textwidth}P{0.03461538461538462\textwidth}P{0.08076923076923076\textwidth}P{0.08846153846153847\textwidth}}
Working level\tabcellsep n\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std.dev\tabcellsep Dominant culture type\tabcellsep Df\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig\\
Management\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 42.33\tabcellsep 7.69\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 0.883\tabcellsep 0.511\\
Employee\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 46.89\tabcellsep 11.79\tabcellsep Hierarchical\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.206\tabcellsep 0.958\\
Student\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 38.87\tabcellsep 5.12\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 0.809\tabcellsep 0.547\\
TOTAL group\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 32.03\tabcellsep 9.59\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.125\tabcellsep 0.350\\
* p < .05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Note: Mean scores could range from 0 to 100. Representing a percentage out of 100.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06500956022944551\textwidth}P{0.2161567877629063\textwidth}P{0.1332695984703633\textwidth}P{0.12026768642447418\textwidth}P{0.04875717017208413\textwidth}P{0.13164435946462716\textwidth}P{0.13489483747609943\textwidth}}
Culture type\tabcellsep Working level\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. dev\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig\\
Clan\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 40.67\tabcellsep 6.55\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 1.088\tabcellsep 0.397\\
\tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 59.65\tabcellsep 11.90\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.808\tabcellsep 0.550\\
\tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 48.57\tabcellsep 8.88\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 1.563\tabcellsep 0.183\\
\tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 51.32\tabcellsep 11.94\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.955\tabcellsep 0.089\\
Adhocracy\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 28.17\tabcellsep 5.74\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 1.286\tabcellsep 0.309\\
\tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 27.39\tabcellsep 7.92\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.389\tabcellsep 0.854\\
\tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 20.64\tabcellsep 8.83\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 1.764\tabcellsep 0.133\\
\tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 24.37\tabcellsep 8.77\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.641\tabcellsep 0.153\\
Market\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 19.33\tabcellsep 4.83\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 2.149\tabcellsep 0.101\\
\tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 8.88\tabcellsep 5.10\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.397\tabcellsep 0.848\\
\tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 15.73\tabcellsep 5.85\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 1.391\tabcellsep 0.239\\
\tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 13.82\tabcellsep 6.78\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.031\tabcellsep 0.402\\
Hierarchy\tabcellsep Management\tabcellsep 14.83\tabcellsep 5.45\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 1.113\tabcellsep 0.385\\
\tabcellsep Employee\tabcellsep 4.68\tabcellsep 3.60\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.300\tabcellsep 0.910\\
\tabcellsep Student\tabcellsep 15.65\tabcellsep 6.84\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 0.573\tabcellsep 0.720\\
\tabcellsep TOTAL\tabcellsep 11.49\tabcellsep 7.67\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 0.444\tabcellsep 0.817\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.17118055555555556\textwidth}P{0.265625\textwidth}P{0.07083333333333333\textwidth}P{0.0767361111111111\textwidth}P{0.10920138888888888\textwidth}P{0.0265625\textwidth}P{0.06197916666666667\textwidth}P{0.06788194444444444\textwidth}}
Working level\tabcellsep n\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. dev\tabcellsep Dominant culture type\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig\\
Management\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 40.67\tabcellsep 6.55\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 1.088\tabcellsep 0.397\\
Employee\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 59.65\tabcellsep 11.90\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 0.808\tabcellsep 0.550\\
Student\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 48.57\tabcellsep 8.88\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 1.563\tabcellsep 0.183\\
TOTAL group\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 51.32\tabcellsep 11.94\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.955\tabcellsep 0.089\\
* p < .05\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Note: Mean scores could range from 0 to 100. Representing a percentage out of 100.}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.056499261447562774\textwidth}P{0.08035450516986706\textwidth}P{0.12680945347119646\textwidth}P{0.09416543574593797\textwidth}P{0.0740768094534712\textwidth}P{0.0740768094534712\textwidth}P{0.08035450516986706\textwidth}P{0.0966765140324963\textwidth}P{0.08035450516986706\textwidth}P{0.08663220088626292\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The working level}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Current culture}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Preferred}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of respondents}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchical}\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Hierarchical\\
MGT\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 22.0 0\tabcellsep 40.00\tabcellsep 22.00\tabcellsep 16.00\tabcellsep 37.00\tabcellsep 25.00\tabcellsep 24.00\tabcellsep 20.00\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 5.70 1\tabcellsep 7.071\tabcellsep 2.739\tabcellsep 8.216\tabcellsep 2.739\tabcellsep 5.000\tabcellsep 6.519\tabcellsep 7.071\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 110\tabcellsep 200\tabcellsep 110\tabcellsep 80\tabcellsep 185\tabcellsep 125\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 100\\
EMP\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 10.2 7\tabcellsep 15.18\tabcellsep 27.27\tabcellsep 46.82\tabcellsep 57.73\tabcellsep 28.18\tabcellsep 9.27\tabcellsep 4.36\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.97 7\tabcellsep 6.353\tabcellsep 6.068\tabcellsep 9.293\tabcellsep 9.045\tabcellsep 6.809\tabcellsep 4.221\tabcellsep 1.567\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 113\tabcellsep 167\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 515\tabcellsep 635\tabcellsep 310\tabcellsep 102\tabcellsep 48\\
STU\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 27.5 7\tabcellsep 18.36\tabcellsep 38.86\tabcellsep 15.21\tabcellsep 44.64\tabcellsep 26.07\tabcellsep 15.36\tabcellsep 14.64\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.67 3\tabcellsep 5.597\tabcellsep 6.311\tabcellsep 5.250\tabcellsep 7.196\tabcellsep 7.641\tabcellsep 6.344\tabcellsep 6.344\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 386\tabcellsep 257\tabcellsep 544\tabcellsep 213\tabcellsep 625\tabcellsep 365\tabcellsep 215\tabcellsep 205\\
Total\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 20.3 0\tabcellsep 20.80\tabcellsep 31.80\tabcellsep 26.93\tabcellsep 48.17\tabcellsep 26.67\tabcellsep 14.57\tabcellsep 11.77\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 8.95 3\tabcellsep 10.643\tabcellsep 8.942\tabcellsep 16.981\tabcellsep 10.71\tabcellsep 6.865\tabcellsep 7.505\tabcellsep 7.890\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 609\tabcellsep 624\tabcellsep 954\tabcellsep 808\tabcellsep 1445\tabcellsep 800\tabcellsep 437\tabcellsep 353\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05641025641025641\textwidth}P{0.08205128205128205\textwidth}P{0.11538461538461538\textwidth}P{0.09615384615384615\textwidth}P{0.07435897435897436\textwidth}P{0.07692307692307691\textwidth}P{0.08205128205128205\textwidth}P{0.09871794871794871\textwidth}P{0.09615384615384615\textwidth}P{0.0717948717948718\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The working}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Current culture}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Preferred}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{level of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{respondents}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchical}\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Market Hierarchical}\\
MGT\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 19.00\tabcellsep 41.00\tabcellsep 18.00\tabcellsep 22.00\tabcellsep 42.00\tabcellsep 28.00\tabcellsep 18.00\tabcellsep 14.00\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 7.416\tabcellsep 8.944\tabcellsep 5.701\tabcellsep 7.583\tabcellsep 5.701\tabcellsep 2.739\tabcellsep 2.739\tabcellsep 6.519\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 205\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 110\tabcellsep 210\tabcellsep 140\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 70\\
EMP\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 8.64\tabcellsep 13.18\tabcellsep 31.36\tabcellsep 47.27\tabcellsep 58.18\tabcellsep 28.18\tabcellsep 8.91\tabcellsep 5.64\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.233\tabcellsep 6.030\tabcellsep 6.742\tabcellsep 6.842\tabcellsep 10.55\tabcellsep 5.600\tabcellsep 4.369\tabcellsep 3.931\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 145\tabcellsep 345\tabcellsep 520\tabcellsep 640\tabcellsep 310\tabcellsep 98\tabcellsep 62\\
STU\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 27.21\tabcellsep 15.57\tabcellsep 39.21\tabcellsep 17.14\tabcellsep 50.21\tabcellsep 20.86\tabcellsep 14.93\tabcellsep 15.43\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.662\tabcellsep 3.975\tabcellsep 4.406\tabcellsep 7.263\tabcellsep 8.851\tabcellsep 9.380\tabcellsep 4.233\tabcellsep 6.880\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 381\tabcellsep 218\tabcellsep 549\tabcellsep 240\tabcellsep 703\tabcellsep 292\tabcellsep 209\tabcellsep 216\\
Total\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 19.03\tabcellsep 18.93\tabcellsep 32.80\tabcellsep 29.00\tabcellsep 51.77\tabcellsep 24.73\tabcellsep 13.23\tabcellsep 11.60\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 9.514\tabcellsep 11.516\tabcellsep 9.342\tabcellsep 15.833\tabcellsep 10.54\tabcellsep 8.056\tabcellsep 5.296\tabcellsep 7.347\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 571\tabcellsep 568\tabcellsep 984\tabcellsep 870\tabcellsep 1445\tabcellsep 800\tabcellsep 437\tabcellsep 353\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.0012743628185907046\textwidth}P{0.05734632683658171\textwidth}P{0.08155922038980509\textwidth}P{0.07773613193403299\textwidth}P{0.1083208395802099\textwidth}P{0.08283358320839579\textwidth}P{0.09175412293853073\textwidth}P{0.08410794602698651\textwidth}P{0.09812593703148426\textwidth}P{0.0802848575712144\textwidth}P{0.08665667166416792\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{The working level}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Current culture}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Preferred}\\
-\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{of respondents}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Hierarchical\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Hierarchical\\
\tabcellsep MGT\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 17.00\tabcellsep 39.00\tabcellsep 25.00\tabcellsep 19.00\tabcellsep 37.00\tabcellsep 30.00\tabcellsep 20.00\tabcellsep 13.00\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 6.708\tabcellsep 6.519\tabcellsep 6.124\tabcellsep 6.519\tabcellsep 4.472\tabcellsep 6.124\tabcellsep 3.536\tabcellsep 4.472\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 85\tabcellsep 195\tabcellsep 125\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 185\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 65\\
\tabcellsep EMP\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 9.55\tabcellsep 16.36\tabcellsep 27.73\tabcellsep 47.27\tabcellsep 58.18\tabcellsep 27.73\tabcellsep 8.82\tabcellsep 4.82\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.560\tabcellsep 12.323\tabcellsep 8.475\tabcellsep 10.090\tabcellsep 10.068\tabcellsep 5.641\tabcellsep 4.400\tabcellsep 3.219\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 105\tabcellsep 180\tabcellsep 305\tabcellsep 520\tabcellsep 640\tabcellsep 305\tabcellsep 97\tabcellsep 53\\
\tabcellsep STU\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 27.43\tabcellsep 14.64\tabcellsep 39.21\tabcellsep 18.57\tabcellsep 45.21\tabcellsep 21.50\tabcellsep 18.64\tabcellsep 14.64\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 2.311\tabcellsep 3.586\tabcellsep 3.423\tabcellsep 5.694\tabcellsep 7.886\tabcellsep 9.646\tabcellsep 6.709\tabcellsep 7.459\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 384\tabcellsep 205\tabcellsep 549\tabcellsep 260\tabcellsep 633\tabcellsep 301\tabcellsep 261\tabcellsep 205\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 19.13\tabcellsep 19.33\tabcellsep 32.63\tabcellsep 29.17\tabcellsep 48.60\tabcellsep 25.20\tabcellsep 15.27\tabcellsep 10.77\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 9.047\tabcellsep 12.027\tabcellsep 8.676\tabcellsep 15.870\tabcellsep 11.364\tabcellsep 8.418\tabcellsep 7.329\tabcellsep 7.267\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 574\tabcellsep 580\tabcellsep 979\tabcellsep 875\tabcellsep 1458\tabcellsep 756\tabcellsep 458\tabcellsep 323\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05590433482810165\textwidth}P{0.1118086696562033\textwidth}P{0.05082212257100149\textwidth}P{0.10672645739910314\textwidth}P{0.08131539611360239\textwidth}P{0.09147982062780269\textwidth}P{0.0851270553064275\textwidth}P{0.09656203288490284\textwidth}P{0.08385650224215246\textwidth}P{0.08639760837070254\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The working}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Current culture}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Preferred\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{level of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{respondents}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Hierarchical\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Adhocracy Market}\tabcellsep Hierarchical\\
MGT\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 13.00\tabcellsep 44.00\tabcellsep 17.00\tabcellsep 24.00\tabcellsep 40.00\tabcellsep 24.00\tabcellsep 22.00\tabcellsep 14.00\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Std. Dev 4.472}\tabcellsep 6.519\tabcellsep 4.472\tabcellsep 5.477\tabcellsep 6.124\tabcellsep 4.183\tabcellsep 6.708\tabcellsep 5.477\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 65\tabcellsep 220\tabcellsep 85\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 200\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 110\tabcellsep 70\\
EMP\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 8.45\tabcellsep 17.45\tabcellsep 29.55\tabcellsep 44.55\tabcellsep 65.45\tabcellsep 25.00\tabcellsep 7.09\tabcellsep 4.27\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Std. Dev 3.643}\tabcellsep 5.126\tabcellsep 6.876\tabcellsep 5.681\tabcellsep 14.397\tabcellsep 10.000\tabcellsep 5.665\tabcellsep 4.777\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 93\tabcellsep 192\tabcellsep 325\tabcellsep 490\tabcellsep 720\tabcellsep 275\tabcellsep 78\tabcellsep 47\\
STU\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 25.64\tabcellsep 17.50\tabcellsep 37.00\tabcellsep 19.86\tabcellsep 49.29\tabcellsep 16.71\tabcellsep 16.50\tabcellsep 17.50\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Std. Dev 4.568}\tabcellsep 5.273\tabcellsep 5.159\tabcellsep 6.815\tabcellsep 10.042\tabcellsep 7.226\tabcellsep 6.981\tabcellsep 7.272\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 359\tabcellsep 245\tabcellsep 518\tabcellsep 278\tabcellsep 690\tabcellsep 234\tabcellsep 231\tabcellsep 245\\
Total\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 17.23\tabcellsep 21.90\tabcellsep 30.93\tabcellsep 29.60\tabcellsep 53.67\tabcellsep 20.97\tabcellsep 13.97\tabcellsep 12.07\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Std. Dev 9.119}\tabcellsep 11.333\tabcellsep 9.108\tabcellsep 13.116\tabcellsep 14.698\tabcellsep 8.763\tabcellsep 8.442\tabcellsep 8.582\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 517\tabcellsep 657\tabcellsep 928\tabcellsep 888\tabcellsep 1610\tabcellsep 629\tabcellsep 419\tabcellsep 362\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 12 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{13} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.0575187969924812\textwidth}P{0.08180451127819549\textwidth}P{0.07796992481203008\textwidth}P{0.11631578947368422\textwidth}P{0.07669172932330827\textwidth}P{0.09203007518796992\textwidth}P{0.08180451127819549\textwidth}P{0.09842105263157895\textwidth}P{0.08052631578947368\textwidth}P{0.08691729323308271\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The working level}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Current culture}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Preferred}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of respondents}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Adhocracy Market}\tabcellsep Hierarchical\tabcellsep Clan\tabcellsep Adhocracy\tabcellsep Market\tabcellsep Hierarchical\\
MGT\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 14.00\tabcellsep 48.00\tabcellsep 19.00\tabcellsep 21.00\tabcellsep 44.00\tabcellsep 31.00\tabcellsep 17.00\tabcellsep 14.00\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 4.183\tabcellsep 7.583\tabcellsep 5.477\tabcellsep 5.477\tabcellsep 5.477\tabcellsep 8.216\tabcellsep 2.739\tabcellsep 4.183\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 70\tabcellsep 240\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 105\tabcellsep 220\tabcellsep 155\tabcellsep 85\tabcellsep 70\\
EMP\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 9.18\tabcellsep 11.27\tabcellsep 30.91\tabcellsep 49.55\tabcellsep 57.91\tabcellsep 28.91\tabcellsep 9.55\tabcellsep 5.00\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.920\tabcellsep 5.985\tabcellsep 7.355\tabcellsep 7.568\tabcellsep 9.544\tabcellsep 6.789\tabcellsep 5.574\tabcellsep 3.715\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 124\tabcellsep 340\tabcellsep 545\tabcellsep 637\tabcellsep 318\tabcellsep 105\tabcellsep 55\\
STU\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 26.36\tabcellsep 13.43\tabcellsep 40.79\tabcellsep 19.64\tabcellsep 51.07\tabcellsep 18.57\tabcellsep 13.93\tabcellsep 17.14\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 3.934\tabcellsep 3.673\tabcellsep 5.452\tabcellsep 6.033\tabcellsep 9.236\tabcellsep 7.703\tabcellsep 5.609\tabcellsep 5.447\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 369\tabcellsep 188\tabcellsep 571\tabcellsep 275\tabcellsep 715\tabcellsep 260\tabcellsep 195\tabcellsep 240\\
Total\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep 18.00\tabcellsep 18.40\tabcellsep 33.53\tabcellsep 30.83\tabcellsep 52.40\tabcellsep 24.43\tabcellsep 12.83\tabcellsep 12.17\\
\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 30\\
\tabcellsep Std. Dev\tabcellsep 8.979\tabcellsep 14.443\tabcellsep 10.027\tabcellsep 15.816\tabcellsep 9.916\tabcellsep 9.134\tabcellsep 5.790\tabcellsep 7.245\\
\tabcellsep Sum\tabcellsep 540\tabcellsep 552\tabcellsep 1006\tabcellsep 925\tabcellsep 1572\tabcellsep 733\tabcellsep 385\tabcellsep 365\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 13 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{14} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2853717026378897\textwidth}P{0.052997601918465226\textwidth}P{0.16103117505995201\textwidth}P{0.07338129496402877\textwidth}P{0.05911270983213429\textwidth}P{0.21810551558752997\textwidth}}
The working level of respondents MGT Mean N Std. Dev Sum EMP Mean N Global Journal of Human Social Science -\tabcellsep Clan 15.00 5 5.000 75 8.09\tabcellsep Current culture Adhocracy Market 42.00 19.00 5 5 9.083 4.183 210 95 19.64 25.91\tabcellsep Hierarchical 24.00 5 6.519 120 45.91\tabcellsep Clan 44.00 5 11.402 220 60.45\tabcellsep Preferred Adhocracy Market Hierarchical 31.00 15.00 14.00 5 5 5 6.519 5.000 4.183 155 75 70 26.36 9.64 4.00\\
© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: X.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 14 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{15} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11505524861878452\textwidth}P{0.24889502762430937\textwidth}P{0.09157458563535911\textwidth}P{0.023480662983425413\textwidth}P{0.04930939226519337\textwidth}P{0.04930939226519337\textwidth}P{0.05635359116022099\textwidth}P{0.09392265193370165\textwidth}P{0.023480662983425413\textwidth}P{0.04930939226519337\textwidth}P{0.04930939226519337\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Current Situation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Preferred Situation}\tabcellsep \\
Culture Type\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep S.D.\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep p\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep S.D.\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep p\\
Clan\tabcellsep 18.56\tabcellsep 9.23\tabcellsep 27\tabcellsep 1.584\tabcellsep 0.169\tabcellsep 51.32\tabcellsep 11.94\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.955\tabcellsep 0.089\\
Adhocracy\tabcellsep 20.11\tabcellsep 12.48\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 1.698\tabcellsep 0.139\tabcellsep 24.37\tabcellsep 8.77\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.641\tabcellsep 0.153\\
Market\tabcellsep 32.03\tabcellsep 9.59\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 1.125\tabcellsep 0.350\tabcellsep 13.82\tabcellsep 6.78\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 1.031\tabcellsep 0.402\\
Hierarchy\tabcellsep 29.36\tabcellsep 16.07\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 0.754\tabcellsep 0.584\tabcellsep 11.49\tabcellsep 7.67\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 0.444\tabcellsep 0.817\\
* p < .05\tabcellsep \multicolumn{9}{l}{Note: Mean scores could range from 0 to 100. Representing a percentage out of 100.}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 15 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{16} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40138888888888885\textwidth}P{0.4486111111111111\textwidth}}
Current Situation\tabcellsep Preferred Situation\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 16 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2015\\
( A )\\
Global Journal of Human Social Science -\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: © 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)]} 
\caption{\label{tab_14}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{Global Journal of Human Social Science© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US) -} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Berkeley]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{},  		 			C A Berkeley 		.  		McCutchan Publishing Company.  	 
\bibitem[Best ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{},  		 			K Best 		.  		2003. New York: Knawel prentice-Hall.  	 	 (Research in Education 7 th ed) 
\bibitem[Rousseau ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Assessing organizational culture},  		 			D M Rousseau 		.  		1990. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  	 
\bibitem[Deal (ed.) ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Cultural change: Opportunity, silent killer, or metamorphosis},  		 			T E Deal 		.  		R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, \& R. Serpa (ed.)  		1985. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. .  	 	 (Gaining control of the corporate culture) 
\bibitem[Deal (ed.) ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Educational leadership and school culture I},  		 			T E Deal 		.  		M. Shaskin \& H. J. Walberg (ed.)  		1993. p. .  	 	 (The culture of PHLEIs) 
\bibitem[Monroe ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Encyclopedia of Educational Research},  		 			W S Monroe 		.  		1950. New York: MC Grew HILL series.  	 
\bibitem[Schein (ed.) ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{How culture forms, develops, and changes},  		 			E H Schein 		.  		R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, \& R. Serpa (ed.)  		1985a. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. .  	 	 (Gaining control of the corporate culture) 
\bibitem[Sathe (ed.) ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{How to decipher and change corporate culture},  		 			V Sathe 		.  		R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, \& R. Serpa (ed.)  		1985. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. .  	 	 (Gaining control of the corporate culture) 
\bibitem[Schnake ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Human Relation},  		 			J K Schnake 		.  		1990. New York: McGraw-Hill publication.  	 
\bibitem[Shannon ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Human Resource strategy},  		 			T Shannon 		.  		1995. London: pitman publishing.  	 
\bibitem[Ivancevich and Matteson ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		 			J M Ivancevich 		,  		 			M T Matteson 		.  		\textit{Organizational Behavior and Management},  				 (New York)  		2002. McGraw-Hill publication.  	 	 (th Ed) 
\bibitem[Connor and Lake ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Managing organizational change},  		 			P E Connor 		,  		 			L K Lake 		.  		1988. New York: Mc. Grew Hill publishing.  	 
\bibitem[Kelner ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Managing the Climate of a’.  		 			S Kelner 		.  	 	 		\textit{TQM Organization Center for Quality of Management Journal}  		1998. 7  (1) .  	 
\bibitem[Adeyoyin ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Managing the Library's Corporate Culture for Organizational Efficiency, Productivity, and Enhanced Service’.  		 			S O Adeyoyin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Library Philosophy and Practice Journal}  		2006. 8  (2)  p. 24.  	 
\bibitem[Owens ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership University School of Business at},  		 			R G Owens 		.  		2004. Washington, D.C.  	 
\bibitem[Mcshane and Glinow ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Organizational Behavior: Emerging Reality for the Workplace Revolution (2 nd Ed},  		 			S L Mcshane 		,  		 			Von Glinow 		,  		 			MA 		.  		2003. New York: McGraw-Hill publication.  	 
\bibitem[Hemmelgarn and Others ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Organizational Culture and Climate: Implications for Services and Interventions Research},  		 			A L Hemmelgarn 		,  		 			Others 		.  		2006. Blackwell Publishing.  		 			University of Tennessee American Psychological Association 		 	 
\bibitem[Schein ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Organizational culture and leadership},  		 			E H Schein 		.  		1985b. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  	 
\bibitem[Thompson and Luthans ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Organizational culture: A behavioral perspective’.  		 			K R Thompson 		,  		 			F Luthans 		.  	 	 		\textit{Organizational climate and culture},  				 			B Schneider 		 (ed.)  		 (San Francisco)  		1990. Jossey-Bass. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Plunkett ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Supervision},  		 			S Plunkett 		.  		1991. New York: McGraw-Hill publication.  	 
\bibitem[Burton and Others ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Tension and Resistance to Change in Organizational Climate: Managerial Implications for a Fast Paced World (2 nd Ed},  		 			R M Burton 		,  		 			Others 		.  		1999. Boston: Kluwer Publishers.  	 
\bibitem[Kezar and Eckel ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts The Ohio State University American Council on Education’.  		 			A Kezar 		,  		 			P D Eckel 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Higher Education}  		2002. 73  (4) .  	 
\bibitem[Barnard ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{The functions osf the executive},  		 			C I Barnard 		.  		1988. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Kilmann and Saxton ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{the Kilman-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey. Assessing actual versus desired cultural norms},  		 			R H Kilmann 		,  		 			M J Saxton 		.  		1991. Tuxedo, NY: XICOM Incorporated.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
