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 oriented Concern with future, value thrift and persistence• Low Confucian work dynamism/Short- term oriented Oriented 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 • Australia• Egypt • Canada• France • Denmark• Italy • England• Japan • Finland• Lebanon • Germany• Saudi Arabia • Norway• Spain • Switzerland• Syria • United States
André Laurent• Research (1983) – looks at managers and their values in nine European countries & USAHow people perceived organisations as:- political systems- authority systems- role forming systems- hierarchical relationship systems(Mead 2002)
Managerial status (Laurent) Through their Denmark 32% managerial activity UK 40% managers play an important role in Netherlands 45% society’ Germany 46% Sweden 54% USA 52% Switzerland 65%(Mead 2002) Italy 74% France 76%
Bypassing hierarchy (Laurent, Adler) Sweden 22%• ‘to have efficient work UK 31% relationships it is USA 32% often necessary to Denmark 37% bypass the Netherlands 39% hierarchical line’ Switzerland 41% Belgium 42% France 42% Germany 46%(Mead 2002) Italy 75% China 66%
expert vs facilitator (Laurent) Sweden 10%it is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers Netherlands 17% to most of the questions that USA 18% his subordinates may raise Denmark 23% about their work UK 27% Switzerland 38% Belgium 44% Germany 46% France 53% Italy 66%(Mead 2002) Indonesia 73% China 74% Japan 78%
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