Key Dimensions of National Culture in the United States of America - Literature review Example

Key Dimensions of National Culture in United States of America Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course code: Date of Submission: 1.0 Introduction Gustafson & Branch, 2002 cited in Young (2008, p.108) indicates that there wide variety of theoretical models that have been constructed so as to help in conceptualizing the national culture of a given country. According to Young (2008, p.108), these model analyses how society dictates the behavior of individuals subscribing to their ideals by defining their roles, indicating expected norms & values and abhorred vices. In this perspective culture becomes the encapsulating layer. Great individual minds like Edward Hall, Geert Hofsteed GLOBE and Ferdinand Tonnies have conceptualized national culture of various countries through different models. By utilizing parameters like individualism & collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity & feminism and power distance Hofstede developed a cultural model that can be used to explain a national or organizational culture (Hofstede 1991, p.14-14 cited in Minkov & Hofstede, 2011, p.12). The principal purpose of this paper is to examine United States national culture by contextualizing it by Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) model of power distance, in group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation and performance orientation. In addition the paper localizes the discussion at an organizational level by using the case study of Apple’s Inc organizational culture. In this context, the three parameters narrowed on (gender egalitarianism, humane orientation and performance orientation) are corroborated with Apple organizational culture so as to establish if there is indeed a nexus between national culture and organizational culture. In creating this relationship, the paper adheres to three important layers of organizational culture. These are namely observable artifacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. 2.0 Background Literature 2.1 Culture Malinowski (2002, p.37) observes that the term culture is ambiguous and thus defining it becomes difficult. However, he notes that there are various manifestations that can be employed so as to establish what constitute a culture. These manifestations in a particular society include beliefs, customs and crafts among others which can either be partly material, partly human and partly spiritual. The critical role of culture in a given society is to ascribe role, define expectations, norms, relationships and unwanted behaviors for various elements within it through reward and punishment mechanisms. Palmer, Cooper and Burns (2010, p.314) notes that the critical role of culture is to create identity and sense of belonging and thus, conformity. This is greatly associated with how people learn their cultural material through socialization. In this perspective, he notes that mediums like family, media and religion are critical in disbursing the knowledge from one generation to another. Apart from these, the same mediums are critical in the change or diffusion of new ideas borrowed from other cultures. 2.2 National Culture and the Cross-Cultural Models The concept of a national culture is associated with the works of Hofstede. He developed five national culture dimensions and their associated scores so as to explain national culture and cross cultural differences (Hofstede, 2001; Hosfstede and Hofstede, 2005 cited in Brewer and Venaik, 2012, p.673 & 674). These scores have been applied in determining national, organizational and individual level differences. The same is affirmed by Mwaura, Sutton and Roberts (1998). Mwaura, Sutton and Roberts (1998, p.213 citing Hofstede 1980a) notes that the underlying motivation was to establish “differences between the assumed shared values held in organizations and the unique values which could be identified as specific to national culture”. The driving purpose was his belief that these values which are widely held by members of a given society can be established and classified. Mwaura, Sutton and Roberts (1998, p.213 citing Hofstede 1987) notes that these ‘unique values’ constitutes a “collective mental programming specific to individuals national culture”. It is this mental programming that is likely to affect ones rigidity or response to change. Shi and Wang (2011, p.94) indicates that Hofstede’s study was carried out twice in the year 1968 and 1972 with a total questionnaires of 116, 000. In addition, the study analyzed data collected by IBM between 1967 through 1973. The first analysis involved 40 countries. Later he extended this to 50 countries which covered 3 regions of the world. On the other hand, GLOBE model which was conducted in mid 1990s involved measuring culture at different levels. The firs level was at industrial level where sub-sectors like financial services, food processing and telecommunications were measured. The second was organizations and lastly, the society where 62 cultures were measured. This stratification methodology enabled it to capture 17, 000 managers from 951 organizations operating across the 62 cultures. As already noted, Hofstede model utilizes masculinity vs. feminism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and individualism vs. collectivism (Hofstede, 2001). On the other hand, Brewer and Venaik (2012, p.675) notes that GLOBE study was premised on Hofstede’s work whereby they pinpointed existence of nine dimensions of a national culture. Despite of utilizing Hofstede’s concept, they took a divergent approach by measuring “practices scores (as respondents perceive things ‘are’ in their countries and values scores (as respondents thinks things ‘should be’ in their countries)” (Javidan et al., 2005, p.62; Brewer and Venaik, 2012, p.675). GLOBE’s model include parameters like power distance, in group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation and performance orientation (Javidan et al., 2005, p.62). Hofstede (1984, p.390) conceptualizes individualism as the exact opposite of collectivism in an anthropological manner and not in political angle. In this context, those who are labeled individuals are those who are primarily concerned with the interest of their immediate family. On the other hand collectivist is viewed to belong to a larger group beyond their immediate family through birth and in later stages of life through association. These groups protect their interests in return of loyalty. Individualism is prominent in those who seek independent path as opposed to those who wish to belong to a ‘tribe’. Individualistic societies are mostly complex to greater extent affluent, heterogeneous and high in specialization (Hofstede, 2001, p.235). Hofstede (1984, p.390) notes that masculinity opposes femininity. Cultures that ascribe to masculine beliefs exploit the existence of two sexes to ascribe roles to these sexes. In this context, he notes men are cultured to be strong willed, ambitious, competitive and assertive among others. On the other hand, women are expected to serve and be submissive. On the contrast, feminist are for a blurred gender role with everyone being allowed to do what he or she can do best. Thirdly, uncertainty avoidance relates to how far people are socialized to be nervous by conditions that they perceive as unpredictable/ unclear or structured (Hofstede, 1984, p.390). The last is the power distance. Hofstede (1980 cited in Hofstede 1984, p.390) observes that all societies are unequal. Hoever, some are more unequal than others. To him, these inequalities can occur in all spheres of life (Hofstede, 2001, p.79). Hofstede (1984, p.390), conceptualises the concept of ‘power distance’ as the ‘extent to which the less powerful person in a society accepts inequality in power and considers it as normal’. House et al (2004) cited in Shi and Wang (2011, p.11) notes that “GLOBE is a long term progmmatic research effort designed to explore the fascinating and complex effects of culture on leadership, organizational effectiveness, economic competitiveness of societies, and the human condition of members of the societies studied”. Javidan et al (2005, p.62); Shi and Wang (2011, p.99); Shi and Wang (2011, p.11) provides the list and conceptualization of parameters developed by the GLOBE project. These include power distance, in group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation and performance orientation. According to Javidan et al (2005, p.62), power distance relates to degree to which a culture’s people are (should be) separated by power, authority and prestige. Secondly, in-group collectivism refers to degree to which a culture’s people (should) take pride in and (should) feel loyalty toward their families organizations, and employers. Third is institutional collectivism which refers to degree to which individuals are (should be) encouraged by institutions to be integrated into broader entities with harmony and cooperation as paramount principles at the expense of autonomy and individual freedom. The fourth parameter is uncertainty avoidance which indicates the degree to which a culture’s people (should) seek orderliness, consistency, and structure. Fifth is the future orientation which explains the degree to which a culture’s people are (should be) willing to defer immediate gratification for future benefits. The sixth is the gender egalitarianism that examines the degree to which a culture’s people (should) support gender equality. Seventh is the assertiveness level which refers to the degree to which a culture’s people are (should be) assertive, confrontational, and aggressive. The second last is the humane orientation which is the degree to which a culture’s people are (should be) fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind toward others and the final is performance orientation that addresses degree to which a culture’s people (should) encourage and reward people for performance. The other work of on national culture relates to that of Trompennaars and Hampden-Turner (1998). This model is premised on seven parameters. These include universalism which deals with general rules. The second is particulism which addresses how a culture relies on exceptions. The third aspect is individualism and communitarianism that explains how a society can be one that focuses on group or that which focuses on individuals. The remaining four remaining aspects capture parameters like inner directed vs. outer directed culture, time as a sequence vs. time as synchronization, achieved status vs. ascribed status and equality vs. hierarchy (Jung et al., 2008, p.623). 2.3 Organizational Culture, Layers of Organizational Culture and Organizational Culture at Apple According to Wooten (2010), an organizational culture entails “ the shared beliefs, principles, values, and assumptions that shape behavior by building commitment, providing direction, establishing a collective identity, and creating a community” (p. 8). Thus, culture manifests itself in the overall behavior of the company in order for the organization to adapt to the environment it operates. Essentially, the culture holds the company strategy together. However, culture is only effective if the management is able to align it with values, resources, goals and the organization’s environment. At Apple, the management has created a culture whose driving force is the desire to make great and unique products. Consequently, the key strategy of the company has been innovation and creativity. All employees are challenged and encouraged to take up this as they work towards producing unique products meeting the demands of consumers. For over years, since the former CEO of Apple Inc. Steve Jobs took over the management of the company, the organisational culture has been defined by important values of creativity and innovation. Jobs did emphasize the importance of these two values by use of statements like “Innovate, that’s what we do” and “Apple is the most creative technology company out there” (Hawn, 2004). According to (McMaster et al., 2007, p.88) there are three layers of organizational culture. These are observable artifacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. He notes that basic assumptions are notions or realities held by those who subscribe to that society. They include factors like fundamental values of reality, human relationships, human nature and the environment. These assumptions are usually subconscious and non visible and the hardest to change in an individual. The second encapsulates the values to which these elements within a given culture subscribes to and normally overt, espoused and debatable. This layer is easily changeable as compared to the earlier since it is debatable. The last is the most visible of all the layers and relates to artifacts & creations, tangible & visual expressions. They can be exhibited in platforms like level of technology and audible & visible behavior systems. 2.4 Nexus between National Culture and Organizational Culture Since the paper will be using organizational behavior to corroborate observation at the national level, it is important to examine their relationship based on the premise that organizational culture stems from the national culture (Dastmalchian et al., 2000; Lindholm, 2000 cited in Jung et al., 2008, p.623). As already noted, changing how an individual are socialized (basic assumptions) is difficult. This then calls for localization of strategies so as to be effective. However, Brewer and Venaik (2012, p.676) notes that at a time, these parameters might not be the same in regards to national, organizational and individual level. The same observation is echoed by Mwaura, Sutton and Roberts (1998, p.215) who notes that organizational culture might differ with national culture especially is the organization is a multi national one. 4.0 US National Culture in the Context of GLOBE’s Model Study by GLOBE outlined nine parameters that can be used in explaining cross cultural differences among different countries. These are power distance, in group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation and performance orientation. For the purpose of this section, the paper will focus on three parameters. These three parameters are gender egalitarianism, humane orientation and performance orientation. In addition, to verify these observations, the discussion will corroborate it with organizational culture. In this case, the example that will be widely used is apple Inc. while corroborating with a given organizational culture, the discourse will adhere to the three layers of organizational culture which are observable artifacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. 4.1 US National Culture in the Context of Performance Orientation Javidan et al (2005, p.62) indicates that performance orientation addresses how a specific culture rewards individual performance. In terms of ranking as outlined by GLOBE model, Shi and Wang (2011, p.13) notes that United States ranks significantly higher in performance orientation (PO). In terms of value, the US score is 6.14 while the highest in the GLOBE’s report is 6.52, the lowest being 5.09 and a mean of 5.94. On the other hand, in terms of practice, US score is 4.45 while the highest in the scale is 5.04, the lowest being3.34 and an average of 4.09. from this observation we can infer that US rating in relation to performance orientation (PO) is higher than the average figures derived from all 17, 000 managers from 951 organizations operating across the 62 cultures. Reward management in US is highly appreciated as means of enhancing production in an organization. According to Iliev et al. (2004), it is the human resources in Apple Inc. that is the source of all value enhancing tasks relating to efficiency, innovation, quality and responsiveness. For instance, for over years, Apple Inc.’s human resource department objective has been to ensure that it provides qualified personnel to the company in order to assure the customers of superior performance. One of the objectives reads “Employees should at all times strive for the highest quality in all they do” (p. 89). This is in terms of the products that are offered on the market. Additionally, the department ensures that company employees always strive to achieve the highest quality in whatever activity they engage in. By so doing, employees are encouraged to do the best in order to meet the challenges of the ever-changing business environment. Furthermore, another important objective, which has been pursued by the human resources department of Apple Inc., is ensuring that there is proactive internal career progression among its employees. According to Iliev et al. (2004), a vital objective pursued here reads “Ensure proactive internal career progression” (p. 89). Thus, it is essential for any company to have qualified employees. However, it is even better if these employees are given a chance to grow and develop their skills. Through growth and development, then employees believe that they stand a high chance of being promoted to the next level in their career. As such, at Apple Inc., it is not just about having the right people doing their best for the company. Rather, the policy here is giving these people a chance for them to grow. Apple Inc. has instituted development programs that ensure that employees are regularly trained in order to update their skills. Training ensures that they keep pace with the changes in their areas of specialization. Credit goes to the management for having come up with such a program through which employee growth and development is cultivated. Through training offered, it means that an employee does not only stay at one stage in their career but with time, they grow and move on to the next level. In order for employees to be innovative, responsive to customer needs and changes in the business environment, then training becomes very critical. Through improving employee skills and knowledge by way of providing growth opportunities, Apple ensures that it has the best people with the necessary skills in the industry. Eventually, it can be assured of the best returns by way of investing and manufacturing the best products (Iliev et al., 2004, pp.88). By so doing, the company will stay way ahead of its competitors as it boosts of the best workforce in the market. There can be an assurance of manufacturing the best products on the market due to massive investments in the human resources of the company. It is the people in the company that are responsible for running the different processes. From the survey, one of the primary reasons as to why people work for Apple Inc. is because of the admiration that they have for the products and services it offers. Of those interviewed, 45% said their motivation to work in Apple is because they actually admire their products. Additionally, 15% said they are motivated to work for the company because of the cutting-edge technology adopted by the company. A further 15% said Apple Inc. offers a challenging, as well as interesting work and it is good to work in such an environment. Moreover, 6% of technology professionals in the US believe that Apple Inc. provides a great working environment. This is in terms of the career progression opportunities, as well as the organisational culture that has been put in place by the management. 6% are said to admire Apple Inc. because of the stability that exists within the organisation. Stability has been created at Apple Inc. because of the management strategy that is in place. However, 6% said that they are motivated to work at Apple Inc. because of some other reasons which are better known to themselves (Iliev et al., 2004, pp.89). 4.2 US National Culture in the Context of Humane Orientation According to Javidan et al (2005, p.62), humane orientation (HO) explains how a given culture or society a culture’s individuals to be kind towards others, empathize and care. Wang (2011, p.13) notes that United States ranks high. In the GLOBE table, America’s score of practice is 4.18, while the high score derived from the study is 5.12, low being 3.29 and a mean of of 4.08. on the other hand, the score in relation to value is 5.51 while the high score as per the whole study is 5.91, low 4.85 and a mean of 5.42. This shows that US scores just slightly high than the average derived from 17, 000 respondents from 62 cultures. One approach that the company has developed under good corporate governance is corporate social responsibility. The company engages in good causes that lead to healthy environment like sustainability reporting, scholarship programs from employees & those from disadvantaged background. Apart from that the company has initiated research on how to build low cost computers for those who are not able to afford the expensive versions (Wooten, 2010). 4.3 US National Culture in the Context of Gender Egalitarianism Javidan et al (2005, p.62) conceptualizes gender egalitarianism (GE) as to extent in which people are made to appreciate and support gender equity. In the table developed by GLOBE, the practice score by the US IS 3.36 while the highest record is 4.07, low being 2.45 and a mean of 3.37. On the other hand, in terms of value in GLOBE’s table, the US score is 5.03, a high of 5.2, low of 3.34 and mean of 4.51. Thus in terms of practice, they have got mean performance, but in terms of value, they have got significantly high performance. For instance, at apple, people are given equal opportunity irrespective of their gender. They key issue is performance. Apart from this the company has put in place gender mainstreaming policies that aims at encouraging women to be part and parcel of the organization’s core. In addition, the company has a non discrimination policy based on gender or any other background (Iliev et al., 2004, pp.89). 5.0 Conclusion The rationale behind this discourse was to examine US national culture within the model developed by GLOBE study in mid 1990s. In order to contextualize the same discussion deeper, the paper borrowed from organizational culture at apple. The focus of the paper was three parameters these being human orientation, performance orientation and gender egalitarianism. Based on the reviews conducted it was established that the US national culture in terms of performance orientation ranks significantly higher in the GLOBE’s scale. Secondly, the paper established that US national culture in terms of human orientation ranks higher in the GLOBE’s scale. Lastly, the paper found out that US national culture in terms of performance orientation ranks equally higher in the GLOBE’s scale. References Brewer, P. & Venaik, P. (2012). On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6): 673-683. Deaux, K. (2001). Social Identity. Encyclopaedia of Women and Gender, Vol. 1, No. 2. New York: Academic Press. Hawn, C., (2004). If He's So Smart...Steve Jobs, Apple, and the Limits of Innovation. Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html?page=0%2C1. Hofstede G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389-398. Iliev, V., Lindinger, A. & Poettler, G., (2004). Apple Computer Inc. Strategic Audit. Available at: http://www.andreaslindinger.net/downloads/strategicmgmts-lindingeretal.pdf. Javidan, M., Stahl, G. K., Brodbeck, F. & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Cross-border transfer of knowledge: cultural lessons from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Executive, 19 (2): 59-76. Jung, J., Su, X., Baeza, M. & Hong, S. (2008). The effect of organizational culture stemming from national culture towards quality management deployment. The TQM Magazine, 20 (6): 622-635. Malinowski, B. (2002). A scientific theory of culture: and other essays. London: Routledge. McMaster, T., Wastell, D., Ferneley, E. & DeGross, J. I. (2007). Organizational dynamics of technology based innovation: diversifying the research agenda. New York: Springer. Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross Cultural Management: The Evolution of Hofstede’s Doctrine. An International Journal, 18 (1), 10-20. Mwaura, G., Sutton, J. and Roberts, D. (1998). Corporate and national culture- an irreconcilable dilemma for the hospitality manager? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10 (6): 212-220. Palmer, C., Cooper, J. & Burns, P. (2010). Culture, identity, and belonging in the “culinary underbelly”. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4 (4): 311-326. Shi, X. & Wang, J. (2011). Cultural distance between china and US across GLOBE model and Hofstede Model. International Business Management, 2 (1): 11-17. Shi, X. & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede model and GLOBE model: which way to go for cross-cultural research? International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (5): 93-99. Wooten, L. P. (2010). Building a Company the Steve Jobs’ Way: A Positive Deviance Approach to Strategy. Available at: http://www.bus.umich.edu/NewsRoom/pdf/wootenjobspaperFINAL1.pdf. Young, P. A. (2008). The Cultural Based Model: Constructing a Model of Culture. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (2), 107-118. Read More