CULTURE

National Culture

• Hofstede: “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another...Culture, in this sense, includes systems of values, and values are among the building blocks of culture.”

• Culture is particular to one group, learned, passed through generations, includes values, helps predict behaviour

• Are organisational values as powerful as national culture?

• What do you think?

• What are implications either way?

• Laurent (1986) – organisational culture unlikely to modify national cultural values

• when national and organisational values are in conflict, the first is likely to override the second

Hofstede’s research (1980, 2001)

• Hofstede surveyed 116,000 employees in 50 countries

• All were employed by IBM

Hofstede

• Power distance – the distance between individuals at different levels of the hierarchy

• Uncertainty avoidance – more or less need to avoid uncertainty about the future

• Individualism vs collectivism – relations between individuals

• Masculinity (achievement in terms of recognition/wealth) vs femininity (human contacts)– division of roles/values

Hofstede

• Used in intercultural management

• PDI – Malaysia highest, Austria lowest; the degree of centralisation of authority and degree of autocratic leadership. Hi PD means hierarchical, lower PD more democratic

• Uncertainty avoidance – threatened by ambiguous situations, willing to take risks ?

Hofstede continued

• Individualism – high means interest in self respect & personal achievement; low means an interest in face saving and harmony

• Hostede found high relationship between high PD and collectivism

• Masculinity – values eg assertiveness, money, self; high in Japan, Austria; most Scandinavian countries ‘feminine’

France

• Society based on pyramidal hierarchy held together by tight rules and unity of command

Germany

• Personal command largely unnecessary as rules settle everything

The Chinese Value Survey

• Conducted by Bond (Canadian & Chinese colleagues)

• Shared many Hofstede ideas but based questions on Confucius (traditional Chinese values

• Translated and administered to students in 23 countries

• 4 dimensions, 3 match Hofstede (PD, I/C, and M/F) plus Confucian Work Dynamism

Long-term/Short-term Orientation

• High Confucian work dynamism/Long-term orientedConcern with future, value thrift and

persistence

• Low Confucian work dynamism/Short-term orientedOriented toward past and present, respect

for personal tradition, social obligations and saving face.

Hall: High / Low Context

• High context – depend on external environment, situation, non-verbal. Clues & meanings indirect eg Arabic, Chinese

• Low context – communicators have to be explicit, blunt style liked, ambiguity disliked, more open to change

High Context

• Where family, friends, co-workers etc have close personal relationships and large information networks, so do not require extensive background information

• People don’t rely on language alone – tone of voice, timing, facial expression are major means of communicating

Low context

• Relationships are shorter in duration and deep personal involvement valued less

• Messages must be made explicit – less dependence on non-verbal communication

• Agreements written rather than spoken• People separate lives into different sectors like

work and personal life, so need more detailed information in interacting

• High dependence on words to convey meaning – complete and accurate meaning is important

High context Low context

• China• Egypt• France• Italy• Japan• Lebanon• Saudi Arabia• Spain• Syria

• Australia• Canada• Denmark• England• Finland• Germany• Norway• Switzerland• United States

André Laurent

• Research (1983) – looks at managers and their values in nine European countries & USA

How people perceived organisations as:

- political systems

- authority systems

- role forming systems

- hierarchical relationship systems

(Mead 2002)

Managerial status (Laurent)

Through their managerial activity managers play an important role in society’

(Mead 2002)76%France

74%Italy

65%Switzerland

52%USA

54%Sweden

46%Germany

45%Netherlands

40%UK

32%Denmark

Bypassing hierarchy (Laurent, Adler)

• ‘to have efficient work relationships it is often necessary to bypass the hierarchical line’

(Mead 2002) 75%Italy

66%China

46%Germany

42%France

42%Belgium

41%Switzerland

39%Netherlands

37%Denmark

32%USA

31%UK

22%Sweden

expert vs facilitator (Laurent)

it is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that his subordinates may raise about their work

(Mead 2002)

78%Japan

74%China

73%Indonesia

66%Italy

53%France

46%Germany

44%Belgium

38%Switzerland

27%UK

23%Denmark

18%USA

17%Netherlands

10%Sweden

Fons Trompenaars

• general relationship between employees & organisation

• vertical or hierarchical system of authority defining superiors/subordinates

• general views of employees about organisation’s destiny, goals, purpose and their place in it

Trompenaars

• Administered a values questionnaire to over 15,000 managers in 28 countries (1993)

• Later extended to other countries including former Soviet-bloc countries not covered by Hofstede

Trompenaars’s dimensions

• Universalism vs Particularism• Individualism vs Collectivism• Neutral vs affective• Specific vs diffuse• Achievement vs ascription• Time• Environment

Culture shock

• Can lead to a sense of isolation, depression, uncertainty and reduce productivity

• It is a natural response, cumulative too and can stem from ‘trivial’ incidents

• Psychological disorientation. Cannot rely on familiar signals regarding relationships, behaviour, communication