Kitabı oku: «Managing Internationalisation», sayfa 4
However, taking the original four dimensions into account, there are a few countries that show quite similar ratings in all four original dimensions (PDI, IND, UAI, MAS) and thus could be seen to form cohesive patterns. A very consistent cluster is formed for example by Germanic countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) with all being low PDI, individualistic, masculine, strong UAI and short-term (CVS) respectively longterm oriented (WVS) countries, as depicted in Figure 2-18.
Figure 2-18: Cultural Cluster of Germanic Countries23
Further clusters that could be identified on this basis include a Nordic cluster (formed by Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and in addition the Netherlands) and an Anglo cluster (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and additionally South Africa). “Added” countries show a larger variation in one of the four dimensions. Figure 2-19 provides an overview of possible country clusters based on Hofstede’s original four dimensions. As these clusters fit quite closely to the country clusters proposed by Ronen and Shenkar in 198524, the same cluster denominations are used here.
Figure 2-19: Country Clusters Based on the Four Original Hofstede Dimensions
Exercise: Familiarise yourself with country clusters (online)
| 2.2.9 | Adding a New Dimension: Indulgence versus Restraint |
The above mentioned World Values Survey (WVS) included items that dealt with happiness or, as scientists prefer to label it, “subjective well-being”. Three of these items form the core of a new dimension and questioned to what extent people would say that they are happy, if they feel that they have complete freedom of choice over their lives and how high the importance of leisure time is rated. If many people of a culture answered to be very happy, felt that they have a great deal of control over their live and saw leisure time as very important, the culture is understood to show high indulgence. Indulgence stands for comparatively high happiness, describing a tendency to permit relatively free satisfaction of basic human desires related to having fun and enjoying life. The opposite pole with low scores is called restraint and reflects a conviction that such pleasure needs to be restricted and regulated by firm social norms. Basic characteristics of both poles of this indulgence versus restraint (IVR) dimension can be obtained from Figure 2-20 .Thanks to the extent of the WVS, scores for 93 countries are available for this dimension. A selection of these is shown in Figure 2-21.
Figure 2-20: Key Differences between Indulgent and Restrained Cultures25
Figure 2-21: Selected Country Scores for IVR26
VIPs
| 2.3 | The Dilemma Approach of Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner |
From a business point of view, it is not interesting to study culture per se but to use information about cross-cultural differences in order to derive a guideline for meeting the leadership challenges of the 21st century. This view was taken by the management consultants Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner when they deduced their “Seven Dimensions of Culture” from an extensive research database. The 2012 edition of their book “Riding the Waves of Culture” comprises data from 25 years of research with a sample of 80,000 participants (75% of them managers) from a diverse range of companies spanning more than 60 countries.27 Its aim is to help explain national and organisational cultural differences and to provide advice on managing (with) these.28
| 2.3.1 | A View of Culture Based on Dilemmas |
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner define culture based on Schein: culture is “the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas.”29 In a broader sense, culture is basically understood as a dynamic process of solving human problems, that can be stated as dilemmas, in the general areas of human relationships, time orientation and nature dependency. The problems posed for humans are identical everywhere but the solutions usually can be approached from two different sides. For example, some people start with a generalisation and use this to define detailed standards or others sstart with the look at an individual case and then generalise from this experience. Both approaches are in themselves logical and consistent. Even the outcome could be quite similar, but the approach from two opposite poles requires acceptance and understanding in an environment where both sorts of people have to cooperate. What starting point people take is deeply rooted in their cultural background, far below the waterline of the cultural iceberg of Figure 2-2. The implicit culture created by norms and values includes basic assumptions about the right way to approach certain problems. In easy cases, where problems posed are not of special individual relevance, different approaches are usually tolerable. But when it comes to problems that touch the core of each individual – the belief of the sacredness of friendship, for example – solutions differing from the culturally based basic assumptions are hard to accept. These special kinds of problems, where basic assumptions come to light in lack of easy solutions, are called dilemmas. Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s dilemma framework lists seven (cultural) value dimensions that describe certain situations and measure the percentage of survey participants preferring a certain specified option. The value dimensions were mainly derived from former research of other scientists, but the dilemma approach itself is unique.
Figure 2-22: Cultural differences Expressed as Normal Distributions30
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner stress that people from one culture are not at all alike in their norms and values. For each culture, however, a kind of normal distribution of norms and values based on the preferred options could be shown. This allows the depiction of a most predictable, average behaviour. Problems occur when the normal distribution of two cultures display significant differences – meaning that the “typical” behaviour differs significantly and people of one culture will most probably opt for a solution that is usually not deemed acceptable for people of the other culture. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, the values of the observed parameters that are furthest away from the normal distribution of one country also create the basis for stereotypes. This idea is expressed in Figure 2-22. US-Americans expect French people to be emotional, flamboyant and even arrogant (blue area) whereas the French see the US-Americans as aggressive, unprincipled workaholics (grey area). As this example illustrates, people tend to notice differences rather than commonalities. The observed “odd” behaviour is exaggerated and caricatured, thus creating a very limited view on the average or “typical” behaviour of people in a certain environment. Stereotyping could therefore be defined as the ascription of extreme forms of behaviour to people from other cultural groups. In any kind of international business environment, an exertion of this extreme and limited view endangers adequate managerial responses to usual challenges, be it on the individual, team or company level.
The following chapters explore Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s seven dimensions of culture in detail.
VIPs
| 2.3.2 | Universalism versus Particularism |
The description of the first dilemma is probably the most famous of all. The vignette is called “the car and the pedestrian”: imagine you are riding in a car that is driven by your close friend. You know that the speed limit is 30 kilometres per hour as this is an inner city area. You know that he drives 50 km/h which is too fast. Suddenly, your friend hits a pedestrian. There are no other witnesses than you. This case will go to trial. The lawyer of your friend says that he will have to bear serious consequences if you do not testify under oath that he was driving only 30 km/h. The questions posed in the survey were the following:
| - | What right has your friend to expect you to protect him? Possible answers were “my friend has a definite right to expect me to testify to the lower speed” or “he has some right” or “he has no right”. |
| - | What do you think you would do when considering the obligations of a sworn witness and the obligation to your friend? The two options of choice were “testify that he was going 30 km/h” and “not testify that he was going 30 km/h”. |
Figure 2-23 indicates the percentage of people in the respective countries that would tell the universal truth as they witnessed it, meaning they would testify to the (correct) higher speed and not in favour of their friend. (Please note that in all figures related to the dilemma framework scores for countries indexed with “*” are not available in the main reference and might be obtained from a different source. Refer to the connected endnote for details).
Figure 2-23: Percentages Opting for Telling the Truth31
This dilemma sheds light on the basic assumption if the universal truth (expressed in rules, laws, codes and generalisations) takes precedence over unique relations and the needs of friends and other relationships where exceptions would be made for special circumstances. Hence the two opposing values are called Universalism and Particularism. Typical characteristics of universalistic and particularistic cultures are compiled in Figure 2-24.
Figure 2-24: Typical Characteristics of Universalistic vs. Particularistic Cultures32
Exercise: Cultural clashes in business situations (online)
| 2.3.3 | Individualism versus Communitarianism |
Ensuring a better life for all is a goal everybody would agree to. Again, the way to this ultimate goal can start on two different sides. Some cultures start the journey with the individual, thinking that it is obvious that if an individual has as much freedom as possible and the maximum opportunity to develop itself, the quality of life will improve. Others start at the opposite end, paying first attention to the advancement of the community and demanding from its members to take continuous care of their fellows so that the quality of life for all will improve, even if this approach might lead to obstruction of individual freedom and development. Not surprisingly, the Western countries and Israel have the highest percentage of their population choosing individual freedom, as depicted in Figure 2-25.
Figure 2-25: Percentages Opting for Individual Freedom33
How these basic assumptions shape business solutions can be observed by the introduction of pay-for-performance systems. This will be discussed in detail in chapter 5.3.3.
| 2.3.4 | Neutrality versus Affection |
One dilemma affecting all kinds of interactions deals with the extent to which people of a culture tend to display their emotions. In affective cultures people express their emotions overtly and usually seek direct emotional response. In neutral cultures the general convention is to control emotions carefully. This does not mean that people in these cultures are emotionally distant or cold; they just do not vent their emotions immediately. Figure 2-26 provides an overview of the percentage of inhabitants of selected countries that would not express the feeling of being upset openly at work (considering such behaviour as being unacceptable and unprofessional).
Figure 2-26: Percentages Opting for Not Expressing Emotions Overtly34
| 2.3.5 | Specificity versus Diffusion |
Some cultures need to define specifically and precisely the constructs they use, putting everything in an assigned place and an exact perspective. Other cultures prefer more diffuse systems where the overall configurations are still put together as patterned wholes. Specific cultures are very analytic in what they do; diffuse cultures are more holistic in their approaches. This very general value is measured by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner in various dilemma vignettes, each showing a distinct facet of this enigmatic concept.
When looking at the degree of (specific) involvement in relationships, this dimension shows if managers isolate task-related relationships they have with their subordinates from other matters like private relationships or if every level of personality and relationship is the same. In specific cultures, people might be addressed differently in different situations, depending on the relationship mode they want to stress in this specific moment – for example, using the doctoral title at work but not outside. In diffuse cultures, this differentiation does not exist. So a manager in a diffuse culture expects to be treated with the same respect at work and outside. This is mirrored in the vignette used for this aspect: imagine your boss comes to you and asks you to paint his house at the weekend. There were two examples for possible reactions provided. One was seen from the perspective of the colleague, stating that it is not necessary to paint the house if one does not feel like it. The boss is only the boss in the company, outside he has little authority. The second argument stems from a subordinate’s perspective. It states that despite the fact that he does not feel like it he would paint the house anyway. The boss is the boss and this cannot be ignored outside work either. Figure 2-27 shows the percentages of people taking the colleague’s perspective of not painting the house.
Figure 2-27: Percentages Not Painting the House35
It is obvious, that intercultural misunderstandings are quite probable for example between a Chinese supervisor and a Finnish teammember. In case that a Chinese boss truly expects his Finnish subordinate to come to him on weekends for private domestic services, he will not only be surprised to find that his wish is ignored. Already with this request he will have lost his teammember’s trust and respect, as this is perceived as an illegitimate behaviour. Knowledge about cultural differences in diffuse and specific relationships, however, might allow them both to understand the underlying reasons for the respective behaviour and thus regain mutual trust and appreciation.
| 2.3.6 | Achieved versus Ascribed Status |
Differences in status can be observed in all cultures. Some cultures accord status to its members based on their achievements in life. Others ascribe status by virtue of what a person is and not what a person does. These ascriptions could be based on – for example - age, education, profession, social connections, wealth or gender. This dilemma is approached by measuring the importance of achievement versus the importance of the family background. Figure 2-28 shows the percentage of people in the respective country not agreeing with the statement, that the most important thing in life is to act as really suits them even if they do not get things done. So cultures with high percentages consist of a majority of people that perceive achievement or “getting things done” as vital.
Figure 2-28: Percentages Opting for Getting Things Done36
| 2.3.7 | The Concept of Time |
In a business context, the understanding of time is crucial for many endeavours. Differences in the concept of time can be observed by several aspects that need to be investigated separately.
The main question is the relative importance of past, present and future. Cultures assign different meanings to these aspects of time that could be expressed through drawings of three circles, each representing one of these aspects. The configuration of these circles, especially their size and interrelation, provides insights into the time orientation. Distinctive examples of circle patterns for some of the countries considered above are shown in Figure 2-29.
Figure 2-29: Circle Diagrams for Past, Present and Future37
It is obvious that for example in Japan all three aspects of time are viewed as fully integrated whereas in Russia there is no connection between them. Germany and the UK see a partial overlap of all three aspects with the present being the most important of the three in Germany and being the least important in the UK. This view could influence for instance the importance of strategies that is especially stressed in those countries that emphasise the future or the willingness to learn from past experience and build on that.
Typical characteristics of cultures with past orientation versus cultures with present or future orientation are listed in Figure 2-30.
Figure 2-30: Differences of Past, Present and Future Orientation38
The second aspect deals with the magnitude of the time horizon. This aspect considers how long people tend to plan ahead. Participants of the survey were asked to assign scores for the duration of past, present and future in order to indicate the relative time horizons. Scores ranged from 1 = seconds over 2 = minutes, 3 = hours, 4 = days, 5 = weeks and 6 = months to 7 = years. Thus, they calculated an average score per country as depicted in Figure 2-31. In a business environment, a long-term vision spanning decades stands in sharp contrast to a short-term thinking in quarterly reports.
Figure 2-31: Average Time Horizon39
The third aspect of cultural differences concerning time covers whether time is seen as a sequential process, expressed by a series of linear continuing events, or of a synchronic nature where many things can happen in parallel. People with sequential (or monochronic) orientation prefer to engage in only one activity at a time, they follow the original plans and favour to be evaluated based on goals to be reached by a certain time. These people schedule meetings and strictly keep appointments. Organisations with a sequential culture idealise the efficient, most direct route to reach their goals that could be symbolised by a straight line. In contrast, people with a synchronic (or polychronic) orientation have a more flexible and diffuse view of time. They subordinate schedules to relationships and are inclined to spend time with significant others although they might be expected at an arranged meeting. These people prefer to do several things at once and assess their own achievements in context of their whole history with the company and their future potential. Companies with a synchronic culture idealise the interaction of past experience, present opportunities and future potentials, which could be symbolised by an interacting circle. This aspect causes cultural clashes on the staff level, as sequential people judge others doing several things at once as being distracted, unreliable and chaotic whereas synchronic people judge the one-at-a-time maxim as narrow-minded, inflexible and restricting.
Separating the aspect concerning the handling of schedules leads to the wider-ranging differentiation of clock time cultures (where punctuality and keeping schedules is cherished and time is money) versus event time cultures that “give time to time”.40
| 2.3.8 | Inner versus Outer Direction |
The seventh dilemma deals with the relationship of people and the natural environment. The two opposing views constitute that nature should be (and is) controlled by people – men subduing the earth – or that humans are only a part of nature and therefore have to go along with its forces and laws. The belief that the environment can be controlled stems from a mechanistic world view that stresses the possibility to influence the outcomes and is therefore described as inner-directed perception in opposition to its outer-directed counterpart.
Figure 2-32: Percentages Agreeing to What Happens to Me is My Own Doing41
In order to find out about their inclination, people were asked to choose between “what happens to me is my own doing” and “sometimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the direction my life is taking”. As all people are quite aware that both positions hold true elements, having to choose between them poses again a dilemma that could be used to reveal their basic assumptions. Figure 2-32 provides the percentages of participants from selected countries opting for the inner-directed view.
| 2.3.9 | Reconciling Dilemmas |
The seven dilemmas of culture are designed to help leaders to gain a broader understanding of the range of possible solutions to common problems. For a successful leadership practice, however, understanding these dilemmas is not enough. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner postulate transcultural competence as the primary leadership competence in an international business environment and define it as the propensity to reconcile seemingly opposing values to a higher level. This propensity follows a three step approach from Recognition through Respect to Reconciliation as depicted in Figure 2-33. First, (inter) cultural issues have to be recognised as such, which requires an awareness of one’s own cultural perspective. This should be followed by respecting and appreciating the culturally different views without prejudice or minimisation. Finally, these differences have to be resolved in a reconciliation process.
Figure 2-33: The Three-Step-Approach42
The reconciliation of any kind of dilemma is an innovation process that requires the willingness to challenge and change existing solutions continuously until a higher level is reached. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner depict this process in a two-dimensional map of cultural space (sometimes also called dilemma grid) where each axis represents one side of the dilemma. The differing positions of the two dilemmas are found at the highest point of each axis (position 10/1 or 1/10). A compromise solution that could be depicted as a point in the middle of the map (5/5) is not beneficial as only a very limited value would be achieved and both sides still feel that they gave up something precious. So a true reconciliation of both dilemmas should discover an innovative and truly unique approach that enables the involved parties to combine the underlying values of both positions to achieve a higher level (position 10/10). Such a solution is never made by a single decision but involves a continuous improvement process instead. This process will start from one perspective and requires an unremitting search for better ways to achieve the desired solution, moving in the direction of the opposing dimension (taking some ideas of this position and incorporating them into the existing processes or solutions) and then swinging back towards the original viewpoint. This development process is depicted as a spiral that moves upwards towards the 10/10 point. It could rotate clockwise when starting with the x-dimension or anticlockwise when choosing the y-dimension as starting point. A reconciliation of the classical business challenge of globalism versus localism based on the first Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner dilemma of universalism versus particularism is presented in Figure 2-34. This dilemma could be reconciled by creating an innovative solution that uses transnational specialisation – so that each nation (or subsidiary) within the global corporation specialises in a field where it excels. Leadership of these particular functions would then shift to the respective nation/subsidiary as a “transnational centre of excellence” that guides the global organisation in this defined field of expertise.
Figure 2-34: Reconciling Globalism and Localism43
The journey to reconciliation starts with an understanding of the complementarity of both seemingly opposing values, the use of humour to make dilemmas “digestible” to all participants and the deliberate use of language to pose the right questions. Practical advice provided by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner concerning the reconciliation process includes mapping out a cultural space through interviews or questionnaires in order to find the basic dilemma in the problem provided. This helps to gain a deeper understanding. Other useful techniques include drawing meta frames of the dilemma with text and pictures, accepting waves and cycles as a natural way to resolve difficult issues and appreciate synergy of two values as mutually enhancing.44 Further examples will be discussed in the suitable chapters.
VIPs
| 2.4 | Globe Study: More Issues Arising |
The influence of culture on business issues is still a favourite topic for many researchers worldwide. One truly international approach was endeavoured in the so called GLOBE study. The acronym GLOBE stands for “Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness” and was conducted as a multi-method and multiphase research programme. It was designed to conceptualise, operationalise, test, and validate a cross-level integrated theory of the relationship of culture and societal, organisational, and leaders effectiveness. During the phases 1 and 2 in the middle of the 1990s altogether 170 researchers throughout the world combined their efforts to collect and analyse survey data from 17,300 (middle) managers in 951 organisations and 62 societies. The first omnibus publication edited by House et al. (2004) provided findings about culture, leadership and organisations on 800 pages.45 Additional in-depth studies of 25 societies were published by Chhokar et. al. in 2008.46
The GLOBE research project defined culture as “shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across generations.”47 This definition was applied on the societal and organisational level. Culture was examined based on practices and values. Practices were defined as “the way things are done in this culture” whereas values were defined as judgements about “the way things should be done”.48 The methodological approach followed was very sophisticated and based on multiple methods and checks. The research was designed by multicultural teams with the clear intention to bypass typical cultural biases already in the setup of the survey.
Finally, GLOBE used nine major attributes or dimensions of culture, several of them based on Hofstede’s research. An overview of these is provided in Figure 2-35. Special emphasis was laid on the analysis of the cultural dimensions and several dependent variables, for instance the Human Development Index, Gross National Product per capita, measures of welfare of society members as well as certain leadership dimensions. Details of these findings will be discussed in the respective chapters dealing with these issues.
Figure 2-35: GLOBE: Nine Cultural Dimensions49
The GLOBE study grouped 62 participating societies in 10 distinct country clusters, based on previous empirical studies and other factors such as common language, geography, religion, and historical accounts. These are depicted in Figure 2-36.
Figure 2-36: GLOBE: Country Clusters50
VIPs
| 2.5 | Critical Acclaim |
The three previously introduced models of culture are subject to profound criticism concerning the defined concepts of culture, the measurement of culture “per se”, the dimensions utilised in comparison to alternative dimensions used by other scientists and the applied methodology.
| 2.5.1 | Typical Problems of Cross-Cultural Research |
All cross-cultural research is subject to various criticisms based on typical challenges arising from the extremely complex and opaque research topic itself. These include:51
1 Definition problems of all terms used. These concern the definition of “culture” itself as well as all terminology used in questionnaires or interviews. A special problem is the translation of the defined concepts in other languages.
2 Assuming incorrect equivalencies concerning functions, concepts, instruments, and measurement. People from different cultures might have a different understanding of certain (business) functions, of concepts like loyalty or might interpret the scales in the questionnaires in different ways.
3 Choosing non-representative participants. If all participants of the survey originate from the same background, for example one organisation or one profession or one company level, it is possible that these do not represent a fair sample of the countries studied. Their views might be influenced by a very distinct (sub-)culture.
4 Methodological simplicity, as the methodology is for example often based on one ethnocentric pattern and one timeframe, providing bias, misinterpretation and inaccuracies. Therefore, many critics claim the basic principle that a cultural research should be based on a multi-disciplinary approach.
Many scientists, especially psychologists and sociologists, claim that cross-cultural research providing country scores only produces stereotypes, which is not an appropriate way to deal with cultural issues. Fons Trompenaars defends the usefulness of crosscultural models by arguing that all models categorise and are therefore in fact stereotypes. Using models for cultures can be acceptable if the people dealing with this kind of stereotype meet two conditions. The first is that they are conscious about it and the second is that they postpone judgement. For example, the sixth dilemma illustrates that Asians are more polychronic and Westerners are more monochronic. This is obviously an exaggeration. There certainly are polychronic Westerners and sequential Asians. This stereotype mainly warns that the chance that there are people with the other inclination is higher when meeting people from the other culture.52 This warning might lead to negative consequences if people immediately put a critical judgement on it. When they are able to postpone judgement and treat this issue as a reminder to accept different solutions with an open mind, the knowledge about this stereotype can facilitate all kinds of international encounters.
