The Goals of the Corporation and Individual Behavior - Essay Example

? The following essay explores metaphorical representations of society and business organizations, paying particular attention to how culture bears similarities in the societal and organizational realms. The essay will also look in to national cultural differences and how these differences shape themselves within organisations, and how societal structure determines organizational structure. This will be done through reference to extensive literature established in the subject II.1. Organization and Society: Drawing the Parallels After studying the patterns of cultural evolution, the writer of this paper is inclined towards the belief that there is a significant amount of similarity in the manner in which culture is manifested in business organisations and in society in general (Rollinson et al, 1998; Morgan, 1998). To understand cultural diversity in organisations, it would be helpful to understand its roots at a sociological level. Cultural diversity at the workplace is a direct result of ‘multiculturalism’ in the society. A multicultural society simply denotes a society in which there exist several cultures (Watson, 2000). Culture is defined as, “A pattern of shared assumptions a group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you think, perceive, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2003). So, a multicultural society has in it different groups, which have learned different ways of thinking, perceiving, and tackling problems that exist in the society. Each group taken individually is a society on its own, with its own individual culture. When all these individual societies are brought under one single core society, the culture of such a society becomes the core culture, with the individual cultures as its subcultures (Watson, 2002). A peaceful co-existence of the subcultures depends on the way the core culture is structured and shaped. Culture is a sensitive term even today and it still has the ability to invoke an emotional and nostalgic association with an individual’s distinctive way of life, and speaks directly to their sense of identity and belonging (Watson, 2002). A general view of cultural differences is that they affect intercultural encounters, usually by leading to misunderstanding or conflict, at both the individual and group levels (Larkey, 1996). Larkey explains that at the individual level, as different values, beliefs or worldviews are manifested in communication behaviours and as culture creates differing expectations and differing styles or patterns of speech, interpersonal misunderstanding and conflict can arise. At the group level, inter-group processes can be triggered by, for instance, an individual’s non-verbal behaviour or ways of speaking which stereotypically represent a group (1996). It then becomes the responsibility of the leadership of the core society to introduce a culture and/or change its existing core culture to accommodate the various differences brought in by the subcultures in an integrated manner, where these differences are acknowledged and valued (Lachman et al, 1994). When the above sociological aspects of culture are compared to a business organisation, the organisation is the core society, and its culture, the core culture. We all refer to this as organisational culture. Analogically speaking, the organisational (core) culture should be designed in such a way that the employees of the company share a basic set of values and assumptions, which tie them to that particular organisation. But, on the individual or group levels, each employee has his/her own cultural norms and practices beyond those they share with other members of the company, which can be safely termed as the subcultures within the organisation (Bate, 1995). While different cultural traits offer different identities to different employees, there are usually certain traits shared by all the employees, which give them a common identity with their organisation (Hofstede, 1997; Hall, 1996). Uniforms, for example, serve as identifying symbols to employees of an organisation, just as type and style of clothing tie a person to a particular society. More will be discussed about organisational culture in later parts of this chapter. However, this concept of the organisation being a system of subcultures is popularly known as the differentiationist perspective of culture, and is prominent in large organizations with many different internal functioning departments/groups, each having its own distinctive culture. II.1.a Hofstede's Model Culture at the individual level can be studied through Hofstede's analysis of the mental programming of the human mind. Hofstede explains that human behaviour is not random, but is predictable to some extent, and this is the only reason why social systems actually exist. By observing behaviour, we can infer from it stable mental programs. Every person's mental programming is partly unique, and partly shared with others. The author gives us three levels of mental programming that shape human behaviour. The least unique but most basic level is the universal level, which is shared by almost all of mankind. This level includes expressive behaviours such as laughing, weeping etc to more associative and aggressive behaviours, which are common to all humans, and is synonymous to human nature. The next level is the collective level, which is shared with some, but not all other people. This level is common to people belonging to a certain group or category, but different among people belonging to other groups and categories. Hofstede puts the entire subjective human culture in this category. It includes the language we express ourselves in, the attitude we show towards our elders, the physical distance we maintain from other people in order to feel comfortable, etc. The third level, the individual level, is the most unique, and no two people are programmed exactly alike. This level has in it individual personality, and it provides for a wide range of alternative behaviours within the same collective culture. It is hard, if not impossible to draw the lines between individual personality and collective culture, but it is true that there are behavioural differences between people from the same collective group (Hofstede, 1984, 1997, 2004). Since this paper is concerned with the cultural aspects of an organisation, we shall focus more on the collective level of mental programming, with inference from the individual level, since collective behaviour is largely an outcome of much individual behaviour put together (Furnham, 1997). Cultural groups can be defined in national, regional, ethnic, religious, gender, generational or social class terms. But individuals are usually influenced by a complex interplay of several of these factors (Watson, 2002). It is important for management to consider the fact that excessive pre-occupation of just one these factors could be harmful, leading to 'stereotyping', while contemplating organisational change. "A stereotype is a popularly held belief about a type of person or a group of people which does not take into account individual differences (www.gsanetwork.org/justiceforall/definitions.htm)." It is important to remember that cultural characteristics, by definition (see above), refer to shared rather than individual attributes, but it is equally important to understand that individual differences exist, even within the same cultural group (see Watson, 2002; McEwan, 2001; Kendall & Wickham, 2001). To talk about individual attributes means to explore the world of personalities of individuals, which may or may not be influenced by culture (Brooks, 2003). In other words, management must keep in mind both the individual and collective levels of the human mental programming while managing diversity. Many organizations are now using personality analyses while recruiting staff, as it is believed that different personalities suit different job descriptions. Some methods of studying individual personalities include the trait approach, which provide a set of dimensions that may be used to describe the characteristics of individuals. We shall not discuss these methods in detail, as they are not directly relevant to the topic at hand. But it is essential to know that although knowledge of the person might provide a basis for partial understanding of future behaviour, a knowledge of the situation is also important in providing a complete picture (Cooper & Rousseau, 1994). Cooper & Rousseau argue that behaviour is a function of both person and situational variables, and vice versa (1994). For example, a Chinese person applying for a job in the United Kingdom may display a different personality depending upon his/her situation of being in a foreign nation. Here, national cultural traits of personality may be suppressed in a bid to assimilate into the new culture. Communication and management style come into play at this point. II.2 Cross-Cultural Communication: “We all have an internal list of those we still don’t understand, let alone appreciate. We all have biases, even prejudices, toward specific groups” (Lantieri & Patti, 1996). The above phrase sums up the main challenge in cross-cultural communication, the fact that we still don’t understand the people we talk to on a daily basis. Communication is an intrinsic part of our daily lives, whether it is at our homes, at the workplace, in the groups we belong to, or in the community, and we can identify that it’s hard (DuPraw & Axner, 1997). According to DuPraw and Axner (1997), ‘culture’ is often at the root of communication challenges, and our culture influences how we approach problems and participate in groups and in communities. The authors also say that exploring the ways in which various groups within one’s own society have related to each other over the past is the key to opening channels for cross-cultural communication. In other words, our history shapes who we are, and knowledge of our history helps us understand ourselves and one another better (1997). Anthropologists Avruch and Black expand the above views and argue that “One’s own culture provides the ‘lens’ through which we view the world; the ‘logic’ by which we order it; and the ‘grammar’ by which it makes sense” (1993). They conclude that when we do not understand people we are conversing with, we tend to label them as ‘abnormal’, ‘weird’, or ‘wrong’. DuPraw and Axner (1997) suggest that, becoming more aware of our cultural differences, as well as, exploring our similarities, can help us communicate with each other more effectively, and that cultural differences do not necessarily have to divide us from each other (1997). Knowledge seems to be the key to effective cross-cultural communication. According to the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado, studies suggest a more ‘desirable’ view of overcoming communication problems by means of being patient and forgiving rather than hostile and aggressive, if problems develop. One should respond slowly and carefully in cross-cultural exchanges, not jumping to the conclusion that you know what is being thought and said (1998). People’s different communication styles reflect deeper philosophies and worldviews, which are the foundation of their culture. Understanding these deeper philosophies gives a broader picture of what the world has to offer us (DuPraw & Axner, 1993). Morgan explains the significance of effective communication and concludes that every organization is composed of individuals with different cultural traits and individual personalities, and these people are ‘organised’ in some way or the other through these traits in order to achieve set objectives. Hence it is an essential pre-requisite for management to understand individual behaviour in terms of how they work in groups, as well as, individually, which would help understand how the organization itself behaves. Thus individuals are the basic building blocks around which an organization functions, and communication is the effective cement which holds the organisation together (1998, italics mine). We can relate the above comments with Hofstede’s model of mental programming and argue that understanding the individual level is essential to understand the collective level of a person’s, and consequentially, an organization’s mental programming. This can also be done vice versa, since it is easier to identify a person or an organization through known generalizations of their collective (cultural) groups (for example, supermarkets fall under the collective group of the retail market). Finally, if we are open to learning about people from other cultures, we become less lonely. Prejudice and stereotypes separate us from whole groups of people who could be friends and partners in working for change. Many of us long for real contact. Talking with people different from ourselves gives us hope and energizes us to take on the challenge of improving our communities and worlds (DuPraw & Axner, 1993). II.3 Organisation as a Living Being: Adapting to Change, by Aligning with the Environment It can be inferred from the preceding sections that change is necessary in order to promote peaceful existence between different culture groups, in the societal realm. Considering this, it may be safe to assume that similar changes need to be implemented in the organizational realm as well (Pettinger, 1996; Robbins, 2001). The question that may arise, however, is whether changing the existing culture means changing the entire organization. Culture is such an intrinsic quality of a human being at the individual level, and of a group at the societal level, that even though it may take time to change, it may end up changing more than just a few characteristics (Bate, 1995; Hofstede, 1997). Hofstede (1997) makes a distinction between human nature and culture, and explains that human nature to a human being is like the operating system to a computer, which determines one's basic physical and psychological functions. The abilities like fear, anger, love, joy, sadness, the need to associate with others etc, are part of this nature, but how these abilities are expressed is modified by culture (also see Collins, 1998; Italics mine). This means that changing an organization’s culture implies changing the very behaviour in which it expresses itself. Morgan (1998) interestingly likens an organization to an organism, and explains that, "The image of an organism seeking to adapt and survive in a changing environment offers a powerful perspective for managers who want to help their organizations flow with change." (Pg 35) He argues that this analogy encourages us to learn the 'art of corporate survival' by developing active 'organic systems' that remain open to new challenges. In other words, as Brooks (2003) says, it helps us form a more 'proactive' organization with a 'prospector' philosophy of operation. Prospectors, he explains, see their environment as ever changing and seek continual strategic and structural adjustments to cope with those changes. These organizations are continually searching for new opportunities and in the process they may create change and uncertainty for others in their competitive environment. The opposite of prospectors, known as 'defenders', are more 'reactive' in nature, as they act only when environmental changes force them to do so. This kind always sees stability and continuity all around (2003). Research shows that reactors are more prone to misperceptions of their environment than are prospectors. According to Morgan (1998), this is because different environments favour different 'species' of organisations based on different methods of organising and that congruence with the environment is the key to success. So it is evident that organisations are facing the enormous challenge of changing their internal environments in accordance with the external. Some techniques of analysing the external environment have been theorised by researchers, and one such technique is the PEST analysis, which refers to an analysis of the political, economic, socio-cultural and technological forces in the environment (see Brooks, 2003; McEwan 2001; Robbins, 2001; Robbins, 2000; Collins, 1998; Chell, 1993). Since this research is concerned with cultural diversity, we shall focus primarily on the socio-cultural aspect of PEST. As discussed in preceding sections, multi-culturalism in the social environment outside the organisation is the reason for the same phenomenon within. It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the significance of having a multicultural workforce, and if it is of any strategic value to the organisation. Individuals, groups, and organisations have needs that must be satisfied and they depend on a wider environment for various kinds of sustenance. The 'Open Systems' approach suggests that organisations, like organisms, are 'open' to their environment and must achieve an appropriate relation with that environment if they are to survive (Morgan, 1998). According to the 'Law of Requisite Variety', the internal regulatory/functioning mechanisms of a system must be at least as diverse as its environment in order to deal with the variety and challenge posed by the environment (see Morgan, 1998; Watson, 2000; Chell, 1993). In the cultural context, the above phrases suggest that an organisation in a multicultural environment must have at least equivalent cultural diversity with that of its environment, if not more, and this is where the socio-cultural aspect of PEST analysis kicks in, with environmental analysis being a major investment for most organizations today. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci110/nm1/e1-2.gif The above figure illustrates the different stages involved in an organisation, which is open to its environment. The business environment may be defined by the organisation's direct interactions with customers, competitors, suppliers, labour unions, and government agencies, as well as the broader contextual or general environment (McEwan, 2001). The following figure depicts the level of complexity involved in different open-systems, and makes it evident that the social organisational system is at the highest level. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci110/nm1/m1001.gif This brings us to the theory of system evolution, which Morgan defines as, "A cyclical process of variation, selection, and retention of selected system characteristics that allow the system to move to more complex forms of differentiation and integration in order to allow the system to deal with challenges and opportunities posed by the environment (1998, Pg 42)" The above definition talks about 'selection' as part of system evolution. In multicultural societies, selection of culturally diverse employees was originally forced due to government regulations like the equal opportunity acts in the UK. But as the society became more diverse, organisations have begun to understand the significance of employing a diverse workforce that represents the social environment at large. By default, the selection process creates a 'variation' in organisational strategy, and 'retention' of this selected system puts the organisation in par with the environment, thus creating a strategic 'fit', which leads to competitive advantage. This also ultimately results in organizational change (Morgan, 1998). II.3.a Traits in Organisational (corporate) Culture Corporate culture, with its ethos, values, beliefs, and way of doing things, influences its performance, and can further be manipulated by management through a change in management style and the use of missions statements "so that management come to believe in profitability through people, employees come to believe in the value of being close to the customer, and the search for excellence becomes both a shared challenge and the means of boosting corporate profitability" (McGovern and Hope-Hailey, 1995, edited by Sackmann, 1997, Pg 189). 'Respect the individual' seems to be the driving belief behind the formation of a strong organisational culture, especially when combined with a lack of rigid chains of command, which helps to produce a sense of family feeling within the organisation. These traits form part of a successful business philosophy of generating productivity through people (Peters & Waterman, 1982). This leads to a homogenization of an organisation and its culture, where collective decision-making is encouraged and behaviour can be controlled according to situations as employees have been socialized to do what's in the firm's best interests (Ouchi, 1981). Different styles of management determine organizational change, and consequently, a change in culture. Enablers are organizations, which are in par with prospectors, discussed earlier, in that they implement strategies according to external environmental demands. These strategies are enabled through culture change, which, management achieves through its people. Determinists, on the other hand, are organizations that believe culture cannot be changed, but it determines change if and when possible. Drivers and inhibitors are organizations that believe culture can be changed but through rewards and punishments. The figure below illustrates these points. http://www.managingchange.co.uk/bpr/bprcult/3culture.htm Other studies (Deal & Kennedy, 1982) suggest that companies with strong cultures, where everyone knows the goals of the corporation, and are working for them, perform better than companies with weak cultures in which employee goals are fragmented and different from those of management. Peters & Waterman (1982) also suggest that a strong corporate culture acts as a control over individual behaviour, thus allowing for considerable individual discretion without any associated costs to the company. Here, the collective level of Hofstede’s mental programming is managed by giving importance to the individual level. If the individual is respected for who he/she is, there is more likelihood that they would associate themselves more with the collective group of the organization and share its values and norms (1997). All of the above discussion proves that organisation is socially constructed. Bibliography Adler, N.J. and Ghadar, F. (1990) ‘Strategic Human Resource Management: A Global Perspective’, Human Resource Management: An International Comparison. De Gruyter: Berlin, 235-60 Allen, D. And Alvarez, S. (1998) ‘Empowering Expatriates and Organisations to Improve Repatriation Effectiveness’, Human Resource Planning, 21(4): 29-39 Avruch, Kevin and Peter W. Black. “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution”. Peace and Change 16 (1991): 22-45 Bate, P.S. (1995). Strategies for Cultural Change. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Brooks, I. (2003). Organisational Behaviour: Groups, Individuals and Organisation. 3rd ed. Pearson: Harlow Deal, T.E., Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Addison-Wesley: USA Dowling, P.J., Festing, M., and Engle, SR, A.D. (2008) International Human Resource Management. Thomas Learning: London DuPraw, M., & Axner, M. (1993). Working on Common Cross-Cultural Communication Challenges. Alexandria, VA: Public Broadcasting System Hammer, M.R., Hart, W. And Rogan, R. (1998) ‘Can You Go Home Again? An Analysis of the Repatriation of Corporate Managers and Spouses’, Management International Review, 38(1): 67-79 Hendry, C. (1994) Human Resource Strategies for International Growth. Routledge: London Hickson, D., McMillan, C., Azumi, K. And Horvath, D. (1979). ‘Grounds for Comparative Organisation Theory: Quicksands or Hardcore?’ in Lammers, C. And Hickson, D. (eds) Organisations Alike and Unlike, Routledge and Kegan Paul Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, London Keeley, T.D. (2003). International Human Resource Management in Japanese Firms. Palgrave, London Kerr, C., Dunlop, J.T., Harbison, F. And Myers, C.A. (1973). Industrialism and Industrial Man. Penguin, USA Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., & Thomas, D. 2002. The Effect of Diversity on Business Performance:: Diversity Research Network Lantieri, L. and Patti, J. (1996). Waging Peace in our Schools. Beacon Press, USA Larkey, L.J. (1996). “Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups”, Academy of Management Review, 21:463-91 Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M. And Nathan, B. (1991) ‘Organisational Life Cycles and Strategic International Human Resource Management in Multinational Companies: Implications for Congruence Theory’, Academy of Management Review, 16: 318-39 Morgan, G. (1998) Images of Organisations. Sage Publications, London Mullins, L.J. (1999). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Pitman Publishing, London Neuliep, J.W. (2008). Intercultural Communication: a contextual approach. Sage Publications, USA Peters, T.J, Waterman, R.H (1982). In search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. Warner: USA Pettinger, R. (1996). An Introduction to Corporate Strategy. Palgrave MacMillan, USA Robbins. S.P. (2001) Organisational Behaviour. 13th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, Pearson Education International Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational Behaviour and Analysis. 3rd edition. Pearson, England Schein, E.H. (2004). Organisational Culture and Leadership. 3rd edition. John-Wiley, San Francisco Read More