Week 6 DEScRIBING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

1. Week 6DEScRIBING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES MNGT 583 – Özge Can

2. How to Unpack Culture? • Essence of culture => the content and structure of the basic mentalrepresentations 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.

4. Subsidiaries of an American firm:

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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Framework

9. Defining “harmony” differently

10. Hofstede’s Study • Based on attitude surveys of 117,000employees 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.

11. 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

12. 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 aparticular individual will not be at all representative of the mean score.

14. Individualism-Collectivism • The extent to which one’s self-identity isdefined 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.

15. Power Distance • The extent to which power differences are accepted and sanctioned in a society.

16. Uncertainty Avoidance • The extent to which societies focus on ways to reduce uncertainty and create stability.

17. Masculinity-Femininity • The extent to which traditionalmale orientations of ambition and achievement are emphasized over traditionalfemale orientations of nurturance and interpersonal harmony.

18. 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)

19. Extention of Hofstede’s Work -2 • WorldValue 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

20. Cultural Distance • How different national cultures are from each other? • Index of cultural distance => relative similarities and differences between nations

21. 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

22. Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) • Content and structure of human values • Content => the criteria people use to evaluate eventsand select courses of action. • Structure => the organization of these values basedon 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:

23. 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

24. SVS – Individual Level Value Structure

25. SVS – National Level Value Structure

26. 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 andgood can be discovered and applied universally, whereas particularism is abelief that unique circumstances determine what is right or good.

27. Trompenaar’s Dimensions 2) Individualism–collectivism: Similar to Hofstede’s definition, this dimensionconcerns 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 affectivecultures, it is natural to express emotions.

28. Trompenaar’s Dimensions 4) Specific–diffuse: The extent to which individualsallow access to their inner selves to others. In specific cultures, people separatethe private part of their lives from the public, whereas in diffuse cultures, theseaspects of the individual overlap. 5) Achievement–ascription: This dimension is about how status and powerare determined in a society. In an ascription society, status is based on who a personis, whereas in an achievement society, status is based on what a person does.

29. Trompenaar’s Dimensions 6) Time: This dimension is about past versus future orientations and aboutthe extent to which time is viewed as linear versus holistic and integrative withpast and present together with future possibilities. 7) Environment: This dimension is the extent to which people feel that theythemselves are the primary influence on their lives. Alternatively, the environmentis seen as more powerful than they are, and people should strive to achieve harmony with it.

30. Trompenaar’s Dimensions Two dimensions at national level: • Loyal involvement–utilitarian involvement, representing varying orientationstoward 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.

31. 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 workingin 62 different societies and collected data from approximately 17,000 middle managers in 951 organizations.

32. 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)

33. The GLOBE Study • Institutional collectivism: The degree to which organizational and societalinstitutional 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”)

34. Further Examination of Individualism -Collectivism • Tightness and Complexity (Triandis, 1995) • Tightness => The extent to which members of a culture agreeabout what is correct behavior, believe they must behave exactly according tocultural norms, and believe they will receive or should give severe criticism foreven small deviations from cultural norms • Complexity => The amount ofdifferentiation in the various domains of individuals’ lives. The numbers of differentroles available to individuals, the size of communities, and the per capitagross national product of a country are suggested as measures of cultural complexity.

35. Tightness, Coplexity, Individualism-Collectivism

36. Further Examination of Individualism -Collectivism • Vertical and Horizontal (Triandis, 1995) • Vertical collectivism => See themselves as an aspect of an in-group, but membersof the in-group are different in terms of status. These cultures are characterizedby patterns of social relationships that emphasize communal sharing accordingto need and authority ranking or the distribution of resources according to rank • Horizontal individualism=> The self is autonomous and people are generallyequal. These cultures are characterized by patterns of social behavior thatemphasize equity in resource sharing according to contribution and distributionof resources equally among members

37. Vertical-Horizontal Dimension:

38. 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 therelationship between two entities or concepts. • Unlike values, they do not have an evaluative component; they only show a relationship from A to B.

39. Social Axioms – Individual Level: • Cynicism: a negative view of human nature, a biased view against somegroups of people, a mistrust of social institutions, and a disregard of ethicalmeans of achieving an end • Social complexity: beliefs that there are no rigid rules but rather multipleways of achieving a given outcome and that inconsistency in human behavior is common • Reward for application: a general belief that effort, knowledge, and carefulplanning will lead to positive results • Spirituality: belief in the existence of supernatural forces and the functionsof religious belief • Fate control: a belief that life events are predetermined and that there aresome ways to influence these outcomes

40. 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

41. Other Levels for Cultural Differences • Within country/ nation differences: • Regional • Ethnic • Language • Religious • Gender • Generation • Social class

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

43. 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

44. 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

45. Making Better Sense of Culture: 1) Approach other cultures with the idea of testing your “sophisticated stereotypes” 2) Find culltural informants and mentors to help 3) Carefully assess information that seems inconsistent with cultural stereotypes 4) Learn mental maps that will increase effectiveness in different cultures