Various Explanations of Culture - Literature review Example

? INTRODUCTION Hofstede (1998, p.5) says that, ‘my household definition of culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 1980, p.260). He continues to say that, ‘culture is a fuzzy concept. Online business dictionary defines national culture as the set of norms, behaviors, beliefs, and customs that exist within the population of a sovereign nation. International companies develop management and other practices in accordance with the national culture they are operating. According to Samovar et al (2009), culture has been subjected to numerous and often-complex abstract definitions as writers labored to incorporate and explain array of cultural components and objectives. They continue to say that, what was considered earliest definition of culture by British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Taylor in 1871, explained culture as “the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society (Tylor, 2007) Blad (p. 7) explains that, it is important to note that the characteristic that define state autonomy and global market integration are found in both cases. He continues to say that, the comparison of inter-related state-building projects allows us to not only understand the role of distinct national culture but also how sub-state autonomy is enhanced through global political economic integration. According to Entezar (2008, p. 24-25) ‘culture can be studied in two different ways. One can either study specifics in order to determine the general patterns (inductive) or study the general patterns to identify the specifics of a culture (deductive). The second approach is adopted by Hofstede in his dimensional analysis of culture.’ She continues to explain that, ‘every culture deals with power ambiguity, individualism, and gender that are universal and exist in all cultures. Here again these dimensions are filtered through the value systems of various cultures.’ In the argument that, “awareness of the impact of national culture on people in work organizations and its importance in today’s world”, I will argue for it. Theories of National Culture Ernest Gellner’s theory of nationalism, initially articulated in a chapter of Thought and Change in 1964, rigorously questioned the putative casual power of a pre-existing culture in formation of nations and nationalism. In what is now a famous reversal of commonsensical understandings of the relationship between culture and nationalism, he insisted no “the nation”, a bounded national culture that creates nationalism, but the other way round. (Hall et al 2010, p. 516) Lussier & Achua (2010: pp 391) explains that whether organizational or national, culture is a product of values and norms that people use to guide and control their behavior. Culture affects the relationship between members and leaders of a nation based on shared values. They continue to explain that, on national level, a country’s values and norms determine what kinds of attitude and behaviors are acceptable or appropriate. The people of a particular culture are socialized into these values as they grow up, and norms and social guidelines prescribe the way they should behave toward one another. From the above explanation by Lussier and Achua, we can see that, in a nation, a specific conduct that people should relate to each other, there is a specific way that people in management position should relate to their subjects. These codes of conduct dictate how they relate and behave. For instance, the eastern countries, they have a unique dressing manner. In that, all women should be in a certain type of cloth. The same is seen in other countries with Islam religion. Another example is the African countries; the traditional Africans had a unique way of dressing their leaders with different types of clothing. The leaders could be donned with animal skin, to show their power, have a three-legged stool to depict their power among other norms. These national cultures dictate how the leaders behave. They have a specific way of deciding who does what and to what capacity. Lussier & Achua (2010, p. 391) says that, significant differences between national cultures exist and do indeed make a difference often substantial in the way people of that culture behave toward one another, especially employees in multinational corporations who have to travel and work in other countries. Each unique culture has over subtle differences that influence how its members behave and interact with others. To support the above explanation, culture shock and adaptations are major hindrances to multinational corporation employees. To shift from one location to another, is a big cultural change. For instance, if a person is working in the western countries, say U. S. A. and gets posted to eastern countries, say Iraq. There is a certain way he or she is expected to behave, there are numerous laws that they expected to follow which according to them does not seem necessary. Nevertheless, since they are in another culture, they have to follow. These ways cause culture shock; they cause individuals to find it hard to adopt the culture of his/her new place of work. Yamakawa (2007) explains that, Hofstede used three layers of culture in is Pyramid model in which he attempted to show the origin of culture. Further, why it is unique in “human mental programming” he continues to explain that he didn’t create a cultural model by itself, but the international variables that the identified had a major influence on the study of culture and how people from various cultures would react to various situations. I can explain that, human mental programming is born with us, when we are born; we know that a normal person has to walk in a certain way. Some clothing’s are for women and other are for men. We are born with a programmed script written in us, a script that shows us how we should behave, script that show us what we should expect from other people. According to Hofstede (1998, p.6), ‘mental programs can include a lot of things, from religious beliefs, food preferences, and specific choices to attitudes towards authority.’ He continues to distinguish them into ‘symbols, heroes rituals and values in which symbols are the most specific and values the most general.’ ‘A dimension is an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures’ (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.30). Moreover, Levitin (1973, p.492) states that dimensions are not tangible and that they are not directly accessible to observation but inferable from verbal statements and other behaviors and useful in predicting still other observable and measurable verbal and nonverbal behavior. Gilliland et al (2001: PP 114) describes culture as a vast concept that includes physical objects as well as subjective responses. They go ahead to quote (Triandis, 1980) that he identified five systems of variables that define various dimensions along which cultures differ. They gave examples of ecology, substantive system, and social cultural system. They went ahead to say that, most cross-cultural researchers in this field have limited their study to the consideration of their values component of this system and have relied almost exclusively on the system of cultural values developed by Hofstede (1980) Gilliland et al (2001: PP 114) say that, “Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of cultural values comprise of the most widely used perspectives for studying organizations cross-culturally. Hofstede identified four dimensions along which cultures differ according to their values. They include; individualism collectivism, which refers to identity, shaped by personal choices/achievements or by identifying which groups to which one belongs. Uncertainty avoidance concerns the degree of tolerance for ambiguity. It characterizes cultures where there is a preference for predictability, clear instructions, and expectations in the behavior of others. Power distance refers to inequalities in societies and is represented by the perceived amount of power or influence a hierarchical superior has over subordinate in an organization. Masculinity-femininity indicates an emphasis on competition and success rather than on social relationships and quality of life. In culture matters, basing on each of the four cultural dimensions by Hofstede (1980), they affect people in the following ways, starting from the first dimension that is individualism collectivism. This is our personal choices, is also represents identity shaped by personal achievements or by identifying which groups to which one belongs. Gilliland et al (2001: PP 114). In this scenario, our personal choices are to some extend a product of our national culture. Our achievement is of the same too. What we achieve are because of our culture. We find that, culture dictates that we should go to school, that includes college and university, once we got this achievement, our culture has it that, it is then that we are going to get a job and li a better life from earning an income form the job in terms of salary. According to me this is dictated by national culture, because, there are people who can use their inborn entrepreneurial skills to make an income, they should not necessarily get through school, most they employ people who went to school. Our lives are because of groups, we socialize in groups, hence when Hofstede came up with the above cultural dimension, and how we relate to each other show how we communicate with each other in the same groups. National culture promotes respect and honesty amongst other positive communication ways. Communication being a major aspect in our lives, communication is vital in the same. Uncertainty avoidance, which Gilliland et al (2001) explains to be the degree of tolerance for ambiguity. This characterizes cultures where there is a preference for predictability clear instructions and expectations in the behavior of others. This majorly affects the motivation of individuals. Power distance, which according to Gilliland et al (2001) refers to inequalities in societies and is represented by the perceived amount of power or influence a hierarchical superior has over subordinate in an organization. This majorly touches on the management part, from the style of management to the expectations of management. Motivation is also a major factor in the same. Piepenburg (p.16) Power distance is defined by Hofstede et al. (2010, p.61) as ‘the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect. Accept that power is distributed unequally’: Hofstede claims that, institutions are seen as the basic elements of society, such as family, school and community organizations and organizations which are peoples’ work place, they all depend on management style, willingness of subordinate to disagree and the education level and status accruing to particular roles. Piepenburg (p.16) continues to represent a society’s level of inequality, which is admitted as much as by followers as by leaders. Inequality and power are two fundamentals facts of a society and considering international comparison it so obvious that all societies are equal, but some might be more unequal than others (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2009a). The masculinity/femininity dimension, according to Hofstede (1998, p.6-7) dictates that, this dimension ‘Masculinity stands for a society in which men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. The opposite pole, Femininity stands for a society in which both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. (Hofstede, 1991, p.261-262) According to Luger (p.12), ‘In 1980 Geert Hofstede published culture’s consequences (fully revised in 2001). This influential study soon became a major source of reference about value differences around the world’ Conclusion For the argument that, “awareness of the impact of national culture on people in work organizations and its importance in today’s world” is so true. Using the above findings and the cultural dimension, Power Distance, which to some extend dictates the management behavior and how people with a very different social class share and treat each other. Gelfand et al. (2004, p.286) states that ‘our framework highlights the that culture may mediate the relationship between negation conditions and mediators’ psychological states, one possible condition is whether the negotiation concerns property that is either individually owned or a group owned (Carnevse, 1995) According to Kittler and Sucher (2008, p. 63) ‘the perception of power or power distance can strongly influence communication patterns. In low context cultures, where individuality is respected, power or status is usually attributed to the role or job that a person fulfills. People are seen as equals, differentiated by their accomplishments. It is common for an individual to question directions or instructions; the belief is that a person must understand why before a task can be completed.’ This is very basic in creating good relationships within countries and organizations; this also brings about motivation and working in harmony amongst individuals. Entezar (2008, p.25) says that, ‘culture dimensions have the same meaning in all cultures; they differ from each other in how they manifest themselves. These dimensions provide a methodological framework for the analysis, description, comparison, and contrast of national cultures.’ Entezar (2008, p.28) says the following ‘the question of authority is related to the first dimension of culture; power distance. It involves the degree to which the less powerful members of organizations such as families and others accepts that power is distributed unequally. It is the relationship between a teacher and his or her students, a commander and his troops, a supervisor and his subordinates, between a husband and his wife and children, all the way up to a king and his subjects, or a president and his citizens. In conclusion, Entezar (2008, p.28-29) says that, ‘Inequality can be natural or cultural. By nature, some people are physically stronger than others are. Other forms of human inequality can be in the areas of wealth, social status and prestige, laws, rights and rules. Hofstede classified national cultures into high and low based on the participants’ response to the three types of related questions to a ‘superior’s style of decision making, colleagues’ fear to disagree, and the type of decision making which subordinates prefer in their boss.’ REFERENCES Hall J. R., Grindstaff L. & Cheng Lo M, 2010, Handbook of Cultural Socialogy,270 Madison Avenue, New York. Gilliland S. Steiner D. Skarlicki D 2001, Theoretical and Cultural Perspective on Organizational Justice, United States of America. Yamakawa H 2008, Creoss-cultural Web Design: A Comparison Between the United States and Japan, United States. Lussier R.N. Achua C. F 2008, Leadership: Theory Application, & Skill Development: Theory Application & Skill Development, 4th edn, 5191 Natorp Boulevard, USA. Hofstede G. H 2001, Cultures’s Consequence: Comparing Values Behaviours, Institutions and Organixzations across Nations, 2nd edn, United States of America. Hofstede G 1998, Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimensio of National Cultures, United States of America. Piepenburg K Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimension, Luger E 2002, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, Norderstedt Germany Pauleen D 2007, Cross-cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, United States of America Entezar E. M 2008, Afghanistan 101: Understanding Afghan Culture, United States of America Kittler P. G. Sucher P. K 2008, Food and Culture, 2nd edn, Davis Drive Belmont, CA USA Gelfand M. J. Brett J. M 2004, The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, United States of America Read More