The impact of the nationalculture on the adoption and   use of social media in       organizations      Pavel Bogolyubov, ...
E2.0/Web 2.0 vs. culture.        Why? 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500    0        Top ten languages on Wikipedia, b...
Contd…60.050.040.030.020.010.0 0.0        Dutch       Italian      Polish      Finnish       Number of Wikipedia articles ...
National Culture• The central premise the concept is that  people in a country would share a  number of  commonalities, e....
Online Behaviour And        National CultureThere is a number of publications dedicated to culture-bound differences in on...
Geert Hofstede‟s Cultural         Dimensions• A study done in IBM 1960s and then  expanded;• Behavioural differences betwe...
Hofstede‟s dimensions• The „Original Four‟:  – Power Distance (PDI);  – Collectivism/Individualism (IDV);  – Masculinity (...
Hofstede‟s Cultural              Dimensions• Hofstede suggested describing national cultures via  six indices (Hofstede, H...
Hofstede‟s Cultural       Dimensions – contd.– Masculinity (MAS) shows whether achievement is more  valued in a culture th...
What‟s So Cultural About It             PDI      IDV      MAS      UAI      LTOWS      IVRLinkedin      -0.41     0.52    ...
The Exploration Idea     Could the cultural dimensions be     superimposed onto a technologyacceptance model to create an ...
The Unified Theory of Use andAcceptance of Technology (UTAUT)               (Source: Venkatesh, Morris et al., 2003).
UTAUT‟s Adaptation• We have made some amendments to the methodology:  – Qualitative data rather than a questionnaire, in o...
ResultsIn total, representatives of 12 knowledge-     intensive companies using social        platforms were interviewed.
Findings SummaryOrganization        Industry         Country                                  Interview FindingsCompany A ...
Findings Summary• In most cases (A, B, C, G, H, J, K, L  and D to a degree) the trends and  issues identified by the respo...
Integrative Matrix                                        PDI                                         IDV                 ...
Two Questions, However…• Is it social software or ICT in general?• And what about the remaining cases  that disagree with ...
Generic ICT vs. 2.0• Every single company relies on advanced ICT:  banking systems, bug trackers or process control  softw...
Non-conformant Cases• Social software adoption remains a highly contextual matter;• In cases with no other influence, the ...
Practical Implications• If the appropriate measures are taken, it can still be deployed  and used effectively in culturall...
Limitations and Further            Research• Further expansion to build a more  complete international picture;• UTAUT is ...
Well, it‟s not a plug, but…e-mail: p.bogolyubov1@lancaster.ac.uk Or find me on LinkedIn, Facebook or               Google+
Any Questions?
Soccnx III - The impact of the national culture on the adoption and use of social media in organizations
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Soccnx III - The impact of the national culture on the adoption and use of social media in organizations

773 views
643 views

Published on

Speakers: Pavel Bogolyubov

The use of social media in organizations implies a paradigm shift in user behavior from a one-way mode to more proactive, collaborative way of working with much more dynamism and openness than before. Our research shows that such shift does not necessarily fit equally well the behavioral traits exhibited in different countries, and such cultural factors as collectivism (propensity to work in well established groups), relationship with power and hierarchy, and so on, can have a significant impact on how well social systems are adopted. I would like to address the Connections community with an overview of the national culture concept and to describe our research findings to date concerning the implementation cases in a variety of countries. I would envisage that it will be of relevance to those engaged in the Connections deployment in different countries directly on in consultancy capacity.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
773
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Soccnx III - The impact of the national culture on the adoption and use of social media in organizations

  1. 1. The impact of the nationalculture on the adoption and use of social media in organizations Pavel Bogolyubov, MBA Management and Business Development Fellow, Lancaster University Management School Dublin, June 2012
  2. 2. E2.0/Web 2.0 vs. culture. Why? 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Top ten languages on Wikipedia, by thousands of articles
  3. 3. Contd…60.050.040.030.020.010.0 0.0 Dutch Italian Polish Finnish Number of Wikipedia articles per capita by language (thousand articles per million people)
  4. 4. National Culture• The central premise the concept is that people in a country would share a number of commonalities, e.g., values, attitudes, b eliefs, rituals and so on;• The field is quite mature and there have been a number of attempts to create a framework describing country-bound differences between cultures.
  5. 5. Online Behaviour And National CultureThere is a number of publications dedicated to culture-bound differences in online behaviour including Web 2.0, frequently pointing out collectivism as an important factor (Li andKirkup, 2007; Herold, 2009; Shin, 2010; Liu and Porter, 2010) or providing a general overview (Chau, 2008; Ribiere, Haddad et al., 2010).
  6. 6. Geert Hofstede‟s Cultural Dimensions• A study done in IBM 1960s and then expanded;• Behavioural differences between countries in the same company and the same functions;• A multidimensional framework describing cultural differences.
  7. 7. Hofstede‟s dimensions• The „Original Four‟: – Power Distance (PDI); – Collectivism/Individualism (IDV); – Masculinity (MAS); – Uncertainty Avoidance (AUI);• Two more were added later: – Long-term orientation (LTO); – Indulgence vs. restraint (IVR).
  8. 8. Hofstede‟s Cultural Dimensions• Hofstede suggested describing national cultures via six indices (Hofstede, Hofstede et al., 2010): – Power Distance (PDI) describes the degree to which inequality is accepted in social settings such as work, school, family and so on; – Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), is an indicator of how tolerant towards uncertainty a culture is; – Individualism/Collectivism (IDV) is the degree to which an individual perceives themselves as part of a group, and how strong their social ties are;
  9. 9. Hofstede‟s Cultural Dimensions – contd.– Masculinity (MAS) shows whether achievement is more valued in a culture than caring for others;– Long-Term Orientation (LTO) shows whether cultures are oriented towards the future and thus valuing persistence and adapting to change, or – conversely - look at past and present, respecting national pride and history, tradition and social obligations;– Indulgence vs. Restraint (IVR) describes how much fun one is allowed to have in life.
  10. 10. What‟s So Cultural About It PDI IDV MAS UAI LTOWS IVRLinkedin -0.41 0.52 -0.32 -0.24 -0.17 0.31Wikipedia -0.33 0.29 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.18Wikihow -0.29 0.38 0.07 -0.45 -0.28 0.33eHow -0.26 0.41 0.11 -0.47 -0.24 0.28Wiktionary -0.24 0.24 -0.01 0.38 0.18 -0.08
  11. 11. The Exploration Idea Could the cultural dimensions be superimposed onto a technologyacceptance model to create an integrative framework to be tested on companies using E2.0 systems?
  12. 12. The Unified Theory of Use andAcceptance of Technology (UTAUT) (Source: Venkatesh, Morris et al., 2003).
  13. 13. UTAUT‟s Adaptation• We have made some amendments to the methodology: – Qualitative data rather than a questionnaire, in order to get a deeper understanding of the reasons for why the determinants play a role and how exactly it is happening; – Some elements of UTAUT were deliberately left out: • Behavioural intention: in all cases the implementation has already happened; • The voluntariness was broadly similar in all cases; • The demographic factors, i.e., gender, age and experience, would not make much sense given the low number of respondents. – In other words, we concentrated on performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions.
  14. 14. ResultsIn total, representatives of 12 knowledge- intensive companies using social platforms were interviewed.
  15. 15. Findings SummaryOrganization Industry Country Interview FindingsCompany A Banking Russia Portals, many difficulties - silos and high level of dependency on the bossCompany B Banking Russia As above SoftwareCompany C Development Russia Portals, failed- silosCompany D Higher Education Russia Portals, successful - heavy promotion from above and group homogenuity Mobile content development andCompany E sales Russia Various systems, success - Googleesque free-form culture Navigation products Project management-based system, success - procedural requirements (clearCompany F development Russia benefits) and heavy promotion SoftwareCompany G Development Ukraine A wiki, success after some coercion Environmental In-house interactive portal with many 2.0 features, success - "open and non-Company H Services UK oppressive culture", high levels of engagement, heavy promotion FMCGCompany I manufacturing UK Portals, failed - taylorist organizational structures and practices Heavy maichineryCompany J manufacturing UK A wiki-style system, success - clear practical benefitsCompany K Software consulting Germany Hybrid wikis, successful in general, some trends highlighted Software consulting/CallCompany L center India A wiki, success - competitions and career opportunities
  16. 16. Findings Summary• In most cases (A, B, C, G, H, J, K, L and D to a degree) the trends and issues identified by the respondents were in line with Hofstede‟s framework.• Superimposing the UTAUT determinants onto Hofstede‟s dimensions creates a correlational matrix (see next slide).
  17. 17. Integrative Matrix PDI IDV MAS High Low High Low High LowPerformance Strong reliance on A pragmatic view: Knowledge The idea of wide Making oneself Little importanceexpectancy the pressure from if there is a exchange based knowledge sharing visible to the of the personal the management – problem it solves, largely on perceived very management for performance and anything that is not it gets used. reciprocity and negatively and the sake of career overall “hard” promoted as pragmatism. knowledge prospects. benefits. useful is not “leakage” as getting done. harmful.Effort expectancy N/A Engaged N/A N/A N/A N/A approach towards architecture development – the higher the degree of involvement at the design stage, the easier to use it is perceived to be.Social influence As with PE, but The Low importance in Very high – in/out Systems can be N/A also unwillingness implementation led general, although group sharing used as a means to be seen as a “from within” – by there are signs of issue and of making oneself “show off” by the super-users and the network effect. knowledge stand out from the peers. champions. hoarding. group.Facilitating Didn‟t come across as a culture-bound factor, although the ability to customize IT solutions to the business requirements andconditions their ease of use was frequently cited as an important factor in the choice of a system.
  18. 18. Two Questions, However…• Is it social software or ICT in general?• And what about the remaining cases that disagree with Hofstede?
  19. 19. Generic ICT vs. 2.0• Every single company relies on advanced ICT: banking systems, bug trackers or process control software;• Even the relatively low-tech Company I is using various ERP and engineering management programs, Intranet, XP-based shared drives system and so on;• In comparison with 2.0, their implementation and adoption went in an unproblematic way.
  20. 20. Non-conformant Cases• Social software adoption remains a highly contextual matter;• In cases with no other influence, the dynamic defaults to the national averages;• In on organizational context, however, a number of other factors come to play: – demographical homogeneity (Company D) leading to lower PDI dynamic; – organizational culture conducive to Web 2.0‟s ideology or otherwise (Google-esque in Company E or mechanistic, formal and hierarchical in Company I); – or even procedural requirements (Company F);• The data shows that any of those can overpower the national dimensions and create an overall environment stimulating or inhibiting Web 2.0‟s adoption.
  21. 21. Practical Implications• If the appropriate measures are taken, it can still be deployed and used effectively in culturally unfavourable conditions;• The degree of formality in the organizational structure as well as its openness need to be taken into account: – the mode of deployment – top-down with constant drive and support from the management vs. engaged and participative, with more emphasis on facilitation and super-users or change catalysts.• Furthermore, breaking down internal barriers and building trust between user groups need to be taken care of.
  22. 22. Limitations and Further Research• Further expansion to build a more complete international picture;• UTAUT is a quantitative model, and our findings could benefit from supporting statistical data.
  23. 23. Well, it‟s not a plug, but…e-mail: p.bogolyubov1@lancaster.ac.uk Or find me on LinkedIn, Facebook or Google+
  24. 24. Any Questions?

×