Even though ‘pure types’ of culture seldom exist, nevertheless in different national cultures one or more of these types clearly dominate the corporate scene. Research by United Nations’ Centre for Intellectual Business with a database of 13,000 respondents from 42 countries and corporates, shows very marked distinctions. According to the research the highest scores for guided missile companies belongs to USA and UK and highest scores for family companies belongs to France and Spain. Sweden scores highest for incubators and Germany for Eiffel tower. However, in general, smaller companies are likely to take the family and the incubator forms while larger companies needing structure are more likely to take the Eiffel tower form.
Organizational assumptions about an industry’s competitive environment, customer requirements and societal expectations also influence a firm’s strategies, structure, work processes, performance and even survival. ‘Culture formation is neither a random event nor an action dependent solely on the personalities of founders and current leaders’ (Miller). Assumptions regarding an industry’s environment are made and interpreted by organisation’s leadership but how the organization responds to customer requirements, competition and societal expectations depends on industry- specific assumptions.
Silicon valley project teams are driven by people in their twenties and thirties close to the knowledge base of recent university training. Companies in the silicon valley and around route no. 128 to Boston take great risks, work with huge budgets and are staffed by young people empowered and at the peak of their early technical competencies. You might also find a dog under the conference table. Though a few senior executives may be more visible, what makes the valley work is the empowerment of young technical cadres.
The group is irreverent towards existing technology or process. The group’s languge is both technical and colloquial. There is a high proportion of visual schematics displayed around the room, which seem to be predominant working ‘documents’ rather than carefully constructed prose or algorithms. Silicon Valley is a place that thrives on intuitive symbols which are imprecise, being in conceptual or early development stages. The group’s comfort with confrontation is impressive. It is common to see a gathering of youthful, energetic individuals, from diverse (in terms of race, nationality and gender), background engaged in intense confrontational dialogue with disagreements and differing speculations being ‘encouraged’ as a humus from which will spring a new approach. And it is always the ‘new’ that is most revere. If an existing approach is seen as efficient and economical, the group searches for ways to incorporate similar features into the ‘new’ as opposed to sticking with the ‘old’.
It is this overriding commitment to change, to incorporate the latest, to adopt potential new designs and approaches which makes Silicon Valley a special place. The Valley sees itself as the ‘incubator’ of the future and wealth creating in the valley is associated with those who obsolete the past, doing so more quickly than their competitors.
Several researchers in this field is reviewed to measure or dimensions or characteristics criteria through which cultural differences in different countries and parts of the world can be assessed or understood. Geert Hofstede, Kluckhohn and Strodthbeck, Andres Laurent, Hall and Trompenaar have done the most important work in this area. There are some similarities and some differences, but together, their work helps us understand national differences in culture. Based on the their work, suitable cross-cultural training programmes can be designed and delivered.
Geert Hofstede in his book, cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind, focuses on the 1980, 1984 and 1991 versions of his IBM studies involving 1,16,000 employees in 70 countries and three regions, namely East Africa, West Africa and Saudi Arabia. By restricting research to one company, he tried to eliminate the impact of changing orgnisational cultures and analysed the influence of different national cultures. The findings demonstrate that:
Work-related values are not universal;
Underlying values persist when a multinational company tries to impose the same norms on all its foreign interests;
Local values determine how the headquarters’ regulations are interpreted;
By implication, a multinational that tries to insist on uniformity is in danger of creating morale problems and inefficiencies.
The four well-known dimensions that Hofstede examined were:
Power distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Individualism
Masculinity.
This theory is based on the ‘patterns of behaviour and thinking’ in different cultures. The researchers distinguish and compare cultures based on the dimensions listed in below Table.
Kluckhohn-Strodthbeck’s criterion for comparing cultures
s.no.
Orientation of people
Pattern of behaviour or thinking
1.
What is the nature of people?
Good, evil or mixed
2.
What is a person’s relationship to nature?
Dominant, harmony, or subjugation.
3.
What is a person’s relationship to hierarchical, collectivist or others?
Individualistic
4.
What is the modality of human activity?
Doing, being or containing
5.
What is the temporal focus of human activity?
Future, present or past
6.
What is the conception of Space?
Private, public or mixed.
What is the nature of people? This question explores the assumptions of people in different cultures about human nature, which could be good, evil, or mixed.
Douglas McGregor wrote the ‘Human side of Enterprise’ in 1960 in which he described his famous theory X and Theory Y assumptions of human nature. Those who subscribe to theory X assume that people are lazy, lack ambition, dislike responsibility, are self-centred, indifferent to the organisation’s needs, resist change, and need to be controlled or coerced. Those who subscribe to theory Y assume that people have the potential to develop, to assume responsibility, and to pursue organizational goals if given the chance and the social environment to do so. The task of management is to change organizational structures, management practices and the human resources practices including organizational culture to allow individual potential to be released. His theory Y corresponds to assumptions of human nature being good while theory X corresponds to assumptions that human nature is basically evil and therefore people at work require controlling. It is easier to build teams and delegation of authority is more common in countries where the orientation to people and organizations is ‘good’. Democracy is a preferred way of life in such countries. In countries where the orientation to human nature is ‘Mixed’, there is more use of middleman and business contracts are made more specific. In such countries legal profession is a flourishing trade. America and India are nations with mixed orientation while Saudi Arabia and Japan are countries where orientation towards human nature is good. Americans are optimistic about other people’s motivations and capacities.
]]>
The second orientation is about relationship to nature, which relates to locus of control – whether it is internal or external. Americans with an orientation for being ‘dominant’ (locus of control – internal), believe that man can control nature and spend huge amounts on space research, weather control, biotech and so on. In such dominant countries, conflict is not disapproved of and differences in views are encouraged. Organizational changes are easier to implement. There is quicker response to environmental change by restructuring organizations. Consultants play an important role.
The eastern countries, with an orientation towards harmony, believe that there should be peace between man and nature. There is also a desire to avoid conflicts. Countries in the Middle East and India, with an orientation for subjugation, believe that destiny and God, control every thing. People believe in astrology and assign all success and failure to God. People usually resist change.
The third orientation – a person’s relationship to others – is about the importance of hierarchy or respect for seniority on the basis of age, sex, familial or official position. In countries like Thailand, China and Indonesia, there is more follower-ship than leadership. Organization structures are taller and communication is more top-down. Seniors are obeyed and differences are avoided. Employees say what their superiors expect them to say. In countries with an orientation towards ‘collectivism’, the needs of group are uppermost and people strive towards consensus. In ‘individualist’ countries like the United States, people strive towards individual excellence and this is valued by society.
The fourth orientation is the modality of human activity. When it is towards ‘doing’ an in the case of Americans, Germans or the English, self-identification is achieved through action and performance. Every one in these countries is trying to develop a better mousetrap, the rate of innovation is very high. Companies spend a great deal on research and development. One’s achievement should be visible and measurable to be recognized by society. Where the orientation is towards ‘being’, people are more philosophical and spend more time in abstract thinking. In countries of the Middle East, and in India and China, status in life is derived from birth, age, sex, family, and social connections more than through one’s achievement. In such cultures, feelings are social more than logic. Planning is often short term, and spontaneity is appreciated. Where the orientation is towards ‘containing’ (Japan, Thailand), focus is on self-control. Striving is for balance between feelings and doing – there is more of self-enquiring.
The fifth orientation is the temporal focus of human activity. When it is ‘future’ oriented as in the case of the United States, the belief is that a better future can be planned and controlled. Past performance is less important; there is greater focus on career planning and training. Change is valued. On the other hand, if the orientation is towards the ‘past’, like India, Pakistan, and the Middle East, people base their decisions on lesions learned from the past.
The last orientation is the concept of space in the minds of people – how much people value privacy. If people think space is ‘public’ then a notice that a meeting is iin progress is interpreted as a request to stay out. In countries like China, space is more ‘public’ when doors are closed. People suspect something fishy. They will generally walk in without knocking. Open-space layout and public meeting are preferred in these countries. In the western countries, in the other hand, space is more ‘private’. People like their own chambers and always knock before entering others’ rooms.
The Kluckhohn-strodbeck model has weaknesses so far as the manager is concerned:
The research was not carried keeping in mind the implications for the management,
The orientations and variations are imprecisely defined,
Interpretations are bound to be subjective.
Nevertheless this model is very useful for comparing cultures.
In interpreting messages, the context in which the message is framed is very important. The same utterance can have different meanings if understood in different contexts. We interpret and create messages with reference to our pre-existing shared information base. This shared information base includes values which link members of a culture group and influence how they refer to their contexts differently. An analyst interested in the behavioral priorities of a particular group must understand the context and how members experience those contexts.
Hall distinguishes between high-context and low-context cultures. Members of high-context cultures depend heavily on the external environment, situation and non-verbal behavior in creating and interpreting communication. Members of this culture group learn to interpret the covert clues when they communicate – so much meaning is conveyed indirectly. These high-context cultures are Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese, where indirect style of communication and ability to understand the same is highly valued.
In low-context cultures like the United States, Sweden, and Britain, the environment is less important, and non-verbal behavior is often ignored. Therefore communication has to be explicit and clear. A direct and blunt sty le is valued and ambiguity is disliked in managerial communication. People pay more attention to words then to gestures. People publish their experiences, which are widely read and commented upon. In the East, experiences are not published but passed on to close individuals.
High-context cultures have the following characteristics:
Relationships are relatively long lasting and individuals feel deep personal involvement with each other.
Communication is mostly in ‘shared codes’; hence it is economical, fast and efficient.
People in authority are personally responsible to the actions of subordinates. This places a premium on loyalty to subordinates and superiors.
Agreements between members tend to be spoken rather than written. This means that written agreements are just best guess and further modifications are expected as per the situation. This is disliked by Americans who belong to the low-culture group.
‘Insiders and outsiders’ are closely distinguished; outsiders include first non-members of the family, clan, organization, and foreigners.
Cultural patterns are slow to change.
The characteristics of low-context cultures are:
Relationships between individuals are of relatively short duration, and deep personal bonds with others are not greatly valued.
Messages are explicit; the sender depends less on the receiver to understand it from context.
Authority is diffused throughout the organization and personal responsibility is difficult to pin down.
Agreements are always written and expected to be binding on both parties. Parties are expected to be compensated for breech of contracts. There is greater reliance on the legal system to resolve disputes, which is reflected in the size of the judiciary in these countries: 1987 data recorded 279 lawyers per 1,00,000 people in the United States, 114 in the United Kingdom, 77 in Germany, and 29 in France against only 11 in Japan.
Insiders and outsiders are less closely distinguished. This means foreigners can adjust more easily in such cultures.
Cultural patterns are faster to change.
Hall’s model, is built on qualitative insights rather than quantitative data, and does not rank different countries. In general, high-context cultures include Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam and other Asian countries, countries around the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Low –context cultures include the US, Scandinavian countries and Germany. France exemplifies a mix of high- and low-context cultures. The model is useful in understanding low members of different cultures develop business relationships, negotiate with insiders and implement contracts.
This research by Laurent was directed to bring into focus some of the implicit management and organizational assumptions that managers are known to have; it is not so much to explore national differences. Laurent analysed the values of managers in nine European countries and the US in 1983, and in 1989, along with Adler and Campbel, collected data on China. Indonasia and Japan. Laurent used four parameters: perceptions of the organizations, authority systems, role formulations systems and hierarchical systems. The research treated management as a process by which managers express their cultural values. It examined following points:
To explore how far a manager carries his/her status into the wider context outside the workplace; framed the following question in their survey: ‘through their professional activity, managers play an important role in society.’ The percentages in agreement were as follows:
Denmark 32%
United Kingdom 40%
Netherlands 45%
Germany 46%
US 52%
Sweden 54%
Switzerland 65%
Italy 74%
France 76%
These findings show that in France and Italy, managers carry their status into activities outside the workplace. But Danish and British managers are less able to apply their organizational status to influence their non-workplace relationships. This means a British manager can easily play under his subordinate in a club match than a French or Italian manager. In contrast, in Eastern and Middle-Eastern societies managers are expected to believe as managers even outside their workplace.
P.Lorange, tries to identify what mangers perceived as being most important for career success. This led to a list of 60 criteria. National groups of managers were then asked, in a systematic survey, to select from among these 60 criteria those they saw as most important for career success within the firm.
For American managers, the single most important criterion to have a successful career with the company was ‘ambition’, drive and a pragmatic individualistic, achievement-oriented assessment system. For the French the single most important criterion was ‘being labeled as having high potential’, a more social and political reading of the same system. German managers more than others believed that creativity was essential for success. In their mind, the most successful manager is the one who has right individual characteristics. Their outlook is rational: they view the organization as a coordinated network of individuals who make appropriate decisions based on their professional competence and knowledge.
British managers hold a more interpersonal and subjective view of the organizational world. According to them, the ability to create right image and get noticed for what they do is essential for success. They view the organization primarily as a network of relationships between individuals who get things done by influencing each other through communicating and negotiating.
French managers look at the organization as an authority-network, where the power to organize and control the actors stems from their positioning in the hierarchy. They focus on the organization as a pyramid of differentiated levels of power to be acquired or dealt with. French managers perceive the ability to manage power relationships effectively and to ‘work the system’ particularly critical.
A comparative analysis across cultures brings the starting evidence that the art of managing and organizing has no homeland.
