WEEK 6

DESCRIBING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

MNGT 583 – Özge Can

How to Unpack Culture?

Essence of culture => the content and structure of the basic mental representations members of particular social groups share.

Complex interactions of values, attitudes, and behavioral assumptions of a society.

How can we unpact this complex concept? Limited number of ways in which a society can

manage certain problems => developing a system that categorizes and compares societies on this basis.

Subsidiaries of an American firm:

How Culture Affects Business? Strategy formation and implimantation Organization structure HRM practices Conflict management approaches Negotiation tactics Leadership styles

Different Models to Compare Cultures:

Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s (1961) comparative anthropology framework

Hofstede’s study of value dimensions (1980)

Extansions on Hofstede’s study Shwartz’ value survey (1990, 1992) Trompenaar’s dimensions (1993) The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) Social axioms (Leung et al. 2002)

Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Framework Six value orientations to categorize

cultures:

Relationships to nature Beliefs about human nature Relationships between people Nature of human acitivity Conception of space Orientation of time

Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Framework

Defining “harmony” differently

Hofstede’s Study

Based on attitude surveys of 117,000 employees of Iin 40 different countries, Hofstede extracted four dimensions: individualism–collectivism power distance uncertainty avoidance masculinity–femininity

Giving every country a score ranging from 0 to 100 on each of the four dimensions.

Measuring Values: Desirable vs. Desired Desirable: How people think the world

ought to be (Qs referring people in general). Norms involved.

Desired: what poeple want for themselves (Qs worded as “you” or “me”)

Norms: standards for behavior that exist within a group or category of people

Desirable relates more to ideology, the desired to practical matters

The Trap of Ecological Fallacy Ecological Fallacy => making the

mistake of applying the scores at the country level to individuals

Within each nation there might be variation on a particular dimension, such that a particular individual will not be at all representative of the mean score.

Individualism-Collectivism

The extent to which one’s self-identity is defined according to individual characteristics or by the characteristics of the groups to which the individual belongs on a permanent basis;

The extent to which individual or group interests dominate.

Power Distance

The extent to which power differences are accepted and sanctioned in a society.

Uncertainty Avoidance

The extent to which societies focus on ways to reduce uncertainty and create stability.

Masculinity-Femininity

The extent to which traditional male orientations of ambition and achievement are emphasized over traditional female orientations of nurturance and interpersonal harmony.

Extention of Hofstede’s Work -1 A subsequent study based on Chinese

values (Chinese Value Survey by Bond et al., 1987) conducted in 23 countries.

Four underlying dimensions of cultural value orientations found: Integration Human-heartedness Moral discipline Confucian work dynamism (Later

labeled as long vs. short term orientation)

Extention of Hofstede’s Work -2 World Value Survey (WVS) coordinated

by Ronald Inglehart (and later by Minkov), covering more than 100 countries

Data-collection took place in 10-year intervals

Freely acessible from the internet

Cultural Distance

How different national cultures are from each other? Index of cultural distance => relative

similarities and differences between nations

Criticisms to Hofstede’s Study The operationalization of the constructs The limits to generalize the study findings

(data comes only from IBM employees) No theoretical base in developing the survey Other methodological criticisms:

Problems with factor analysis Many items within a dimension seems unrelated Many of the items related to several of the

dimensions

Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)

Content and structure of human values Content => the criteria people use to evaluate

events and select courses of action. Structure => the organization of these values

based on their similarities and differences. They derived 56 values that reflected various

ways of satisfying the needs of a society. The values clustered into 10 groups called

value types. (can be seen as refinement of Hofstede’s earlier work)

7 value types at national culture level:

Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)

Egalitarianism: recognition of people as moral equals

Harmony: fitting in with the environment Embeddedness: people as embedded in the

collective Hierarchy: legitimation of unequal distribution of

power Mastery: exploitation of the natural or social

environment Affective autonomy: pursuit of positive experiences Intellectual autonomy: independent pursuit of own

ideas

SVS – Individual Level Value Structure

SVS – National Level Value Structure

Trompenaar’s Dimensions

His seven value dimensions (1993) were derived primarily from the prior work of North American sociologists and anthropologists

1) Universalism–particularism: Universalism is a belief that what is true and good can be discovered and applied universally, whereas particularism is a belief that unique circumstances determine what is right or good.

Trompenaar’s Dimensions

2) Individualism–collectivism: Similar to Hofstede’s definition, this dimension concerns the extent to which people plan their actions with reference to individual benefits versus those of the group.

3) Neutral–affective: In neutral cultures, emotion should be held in check, and maintaining an appearance of self-control is important, whereas in affective cultures, it is natural to express emotions.

Trompenaar’s Dimensions

4) Specific–diffuse: The extent to which individuals allow access to their inner selves to others. In specific cultures, people separate the private part of their lives from the public, whereas in diffuse cultures, these aspects of the individual overlap.

5) Achievement–ascription: This dimension is about how status and power are determined in a society. In an ascription society, status is based on who a person is, whereas in an achievement society, status is based on what a person does.

Trompenaar’s Dimensions

6) Time: This dimension is about past versus future orientations and about the extent to which time is viewed as linear versus holistic and integrative with past and present together with future possibilities.

7) Environment: This dimension is the extent to which people feel that they themselves are the primary influence on their lives. Alternatively, the environment is seen as more powerful than they are, and people should strive to achieve harmony with it.

Trompenaar’s Dimensions

Two dimensions at national level: Loyal involvement–utilitarian involvement,

representing varying orientations toward group members

Conservatism–egalitarian commitment, representing orientations toward obligations of social relationships

These two can be seen as extensions and refinements of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism and power distance dimensions, respectively.

The GLOBE Study

The most recent study of cultural differences as a part of of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) program (House et al., 2004).

It involved 170 researchers working in 62 different societies and collected data from approximately 17,000 middle managers in 951 organizations.

The GLOBE Study

Institutional collectivism (from Hofstede) In-group collectivism (from Hofstede) Power distance (from Hofstede) Uncertainty avoidance (from Hofstede) Gender egalitarianism (Hofstede’s femininity

dimension) Assertiveness (Hofstede’s masculinity dimension) Humane orientation (from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck) Future orientation (from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck) Performance orientation (from McClelland +

masculinity)

The GLOBE Study

Institutional collectivism: The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action

In-group collectivism: The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families

Important: All dimensions were measured both as practices (the way things are; “as is”) and values (the way things should be; “as it should be”)

Further Examination of Individualism -Collectivism Tightness and Complexity (Triandis, 1995)

Tightness => The extent to which members of a culture agree about what is correct behavior, believe they must behave exactly according to cultural norms, and believe they will receive or should give severe criticism for even small deviations from cultural norms

Complexity => The amount of differentiation in the various domains of individuals’ lives. The numbers of different roles available to individuals, the size of communities, and the per capita gross national product of a country are suggested as measures of cultural complexity.

Tightness, Coplexity, Individualism-Collectivism

Further Examination of Individualism -Collectivism Vertical and Horizontal (Triandis, 1995)

Vertical collectivism => See themselves as an aspect of an in-group, but members of the in-group are different in terms of status. These cultures are characterized by patterns of social relationships that emphasize communal sharing according to need and authority ranking or the distribution of resources according to rank

Horizontal individualism=> The self is autonomous and people are generally equal. These cultures are characterized by patterns of social behavior that emphasize equity in resource sharing according to contribution and distribution of resources equally among members

Vertical-Horizontal Dimension:

Social Axioms

As an alternative way to value studies to understand and compare cultures

Social Axioms (Leung, 2002): Social axioms are generalized beliefs about

oneself, the social and physical environment, or the spiritual world, and are in the form of an assertion about the relationship between two entities or concepts.

Unlike values, they do not have an evaluative component; they only show a relationship from A to B.

Social Axioms – Individual Level:

Cynicism: a negative view of human nature, a biased view against some groups of people, a mistrust of social institutions, and a disregard of ethical means of achieving an end

Social complexity: beliefs that there are no rigid rules but rather multiple ways of achieving a given outcome and that inconsistency in human behavior is common

Reward for application: a general belief that effort, knowledge, and careful planning will lead to positive results

Spirituality: belief in the existence of supernatural forces and the functions of religious belief

Fate control: a belief that life events are predetermined and that there are some ways to influence these outcomes

Social Axioms – Society Level:

Four of the five dimensions merged into one strong factor which was labeled as dynamic externality

The other strong factor: social cynicism

* Social cynicism seem to be a new cultural dimension since it only moderately correlates with dimensions from other studies

Other Levels for Cultural Differences Within country/ nation differences:

Regional Ethnic Language Religious Gender Generation Social class

Two Implications of Culture for International Management What people want from work Views about leadership

Using Frameworks & Models of Cultural Variation: “Hidden enthocentricm” by the people

conducting those research; possible misinterpretations

Instead of explaining culture, they should not constrain the way you assess people from another culture => “oversimplifying”, “sophisticated stereotyping”

Do not rely on overly simplistic models of the effect of culture

Pay attention to the level of analysis => whether it is the individual or the nation/ society

Using Frameworks & Models of Cultural Variation: Importance of cultural paradoxes

Situational context, cultural history, geography etc. are important

Pay attention to internal, within-country differences

They are best used for descriptive purposes rather than in-depth cultural evaluation

The best knowledge of culture comes from direct interactions/ information fro natives

Making Better Sense of Culture:1) Approach other cultures with the idea of

testing your “sophisticated stereotypes”2) Find culltural informants and mentors to

help3) Carefully assess information that seems

inconsistent with cultural stereotypes4) Learn mental maps that will increase

effectiveness in different cultures