Organizational and National Cultures - Understanding their Linkages and Divergences - Literature review Example

Introduction In the contemporary times of globalization, organizational culture cannot possibly exclude from national culture because of the simple existence of the fact that they are interrelated to each other. Adding to this are some of factors in the globalization of most companies like the persistent improvement in international traveling, speedy and widespread international ‘communication’, brisk expansion and transmission of latest technological elements and ‘e-commerce’, ‘free trade’, ‘education’ and ‘knowledge sharing’, great quantity of citizens migrating from one country to another, demand on lowering costs, exploration of ‘new markets’, and ‘homogenization of culture’ (Author, date). In this sense, it is of great importance to consider the integration of the latter in creating a much better international organization particularly in relating the activities within the a particular organization and even the interactions outside the organization. However, in an event of extreme differences of national culture to an international organization, would it still be plausible to develop a strong organizational culture? With proper consideration to its implications, could divergences of national culture to organizational culture be helpful or obstructive in various functions and activities of an international organization in developing a much stronger organizational culture? Nonetheless, in order to answers these questions and the possible repercussions of their linkages and divergences, it is necessary to understand first the very nature of culture per se to further the appreciation of both national and organizational cultures. Culture In the very essence of culture, both Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede suggest, in their book entitled ‘Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind’ (2005), that culture is the combined mental state of people being programmed and which it ultimately differentiates individuals belonging in a group apart from other grouping of persons. They also further relate culture as ‘collective phenomena’ because at the slightest common sense, people reside within the same societal setting where certain culture is being expressed as well as ‘learned’ (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Although, another notion of culture is either subjective or implicit, in general sense, however, culture can be described as an outline of mental judgments, emotional responses and performances which is being learned and adapted all through an individual’s existence. In this sense, culture is viewed in a much more multifaceted approach resulting to complexity in characterizing it. Furthermore, culture involves some fundamentals which are also implicit and explicit in nature. Oftentimes, these fundamentals are explicated through provisions like actions, principles, customs and other essential suppositions. Some contemporary researches recommend the great significance of principles in relating the categories of culture. Principles and performance are obtained through socialization in an individual’s early childhood and carried on upon schooling and working. This can be steady and constant, however, it can still be subjected to alteration from time to time and these alterations can be replicated in culture. Performances expand by means of certain doings within the society which are furthered the possibility of changes in principles. National Culture Among various level of culture (e.g.‘regional/ethnic/religious/linguistic’, ‘gender’, ‘generation’, ‘social class level’, ‘social class’), ‘national’ and ‘organizational’ level are seemed to be interrelated particularly in narrating the existing interactions of people within the corporate settings. The perception of national culture brings numerous as well as all-encompassing explanations which varies every now and then. Its depiction is concerned absolutely to the facts that are either recognizable or recordable. With proper consideration to Hofstede’s (2005) thought of national culture as the combined indoctrination of mental state that differentiates the elements of a particular grouping of individuals from other individual or groups, it proposes that individuals allocate a cooperative national personality signifying their cultural mental indoctrination. This mental indoctrination distributes principles, viewpoints, suppositions, outlooks, discernments and performances. More so, national culture cannot be conceived as either the solitary culture or even the sum of all cultures of a particular country or nation, but it culturally differentiates the citizens of one country from another country. In addition, there are four ‘dimensions’ of national culture, according to Hofstede (2005) , such as ‘social inequality’ which comprises the liaison with power or supremacy, the connection between human being and a particular group, perception of both maleness and femaleness and its societal connotations, and different approaches to overcome ‘uncertainty’ (e.g. management of various kind of emotional expression). In spite of the fact that certain people of a particular country can be made a distinction based on various criteria such as race, religion and the like, according to Hofstede (2005), each populace in a national setting by some means has a distinctive culture apart from other criteria. Even though there are countless diverse characterizations of national culture, still Hofstede’s definition is somehow being accepted most of the time by contemporary scholars. Organizational Culture On the other hand and in the fundamental sense, the main character of an organization is its culture, in which conjectures, principles, and customs along with substantial features are being expressed by its members in their actions. This includes the environment of the workplace, living occurrences, potency, limitations, edification, and background, among others, of all members of the organization and also taking into consideration its executives. This can also be described as a communal arrangement of meaning by every member of an organization bonding them collectively in terms of signifying proper customary within the organization. The functions of organizational culture are to control and direct actions, to identify restrictions, to express identity, and to encourage dedication from its members. On the other hand, its drawbacks are impediments of mergers and acquisitions, and hindrance of diversity and change. Organizational culture can be started in its initiator’s values and beliefs and upon the process of choosing its members. Subsequently, socialization within the organization may soon establish organizational culture. Linkages of Organization to National Cultures The notion of culture is predominantly significant upon endeavoring to administer transformation within the organization; thus, people are becoming conscious of the fact that changes in an organization necessitate changing its culture in the same manner of changing arrangements and practices. The improvement of promoting a well-defined organizational culture is that it facilitates the foundation of general principles and makes it parallel to conducts of its employees. Numerous business organization particularly multinational ones make use of employees’ manual which presents company’s ethics, values, and the like for their employees both locally and internationally in order for the organization to induce the alignment. This has been supported by Bjorman and Xiucheng’s notion that human resource scheme is supposed to ‘be realigned’ enabling the sustainability of learning in the global sense and in to have a much more specific function of making it possible to have a ‘cross-border’ collaboration to further ensure global competitive edge (author, date). With the aforementioned concept of organization as well as national culture, oftentimes, it is implicit that organizational culture is a division or ‘micro-context’ of national culture. This notion is prevalent in view of the fact that the majority of organizations functions inside a particular country at the same time employing constituents who possess national culture of that country. However, with the augmentation of multinational companies, it is still contentious whether the organizational culture is really in the micro-context of national culture or is it instead possible to pronounce that the host country’s culture is the micro-context and the organizational culture per se is the macro-context of the national culture. However, in conveying Gallivan and Strite’s concept of culture that there exists hierarchal order amidst people’s perception of the well-liked features of fitting together cultural levels which can be oftentimes confusing and bring misunderstanding. In relation to the degree of organizational culture’s dependence on national culture, researches demonstrate that the former are fashioned not only by the latter but also by other factors. This can be exemplified in a distinctive country such as the United States of America where there is an immense inclination for individualism; still, organizational cultures are characterized as an extensive at the same time varied type of culture. In the case of Hewlett-Packard as well as Apple, the organizational culture mirrors the character and inclinations of initial founding members while Lee Iacocca’s personality is greatly influenced by Chysler’s culture. At times, an organizational culture appears to obtain a distinctive character as time goes by apart from its leaders or executives. Divergences and its Implications In some instances, an individual who apply in an international organization and is suitable to its culture can be accepted while if an individual’s culture is quite conflicting he/she will be either immediately rejected or if accepted will eventually opt to resign in just a matter of a month or so. This is quite practicable, in doing so however, the international organization may most probably achieve homogeneity of culture in spite of various international locations. In this manner, however, advantages of cross-cultural multiplicity in this manner are being sacrificed and employees may even feel alienated from national cultures upon having poor relationships within the local setting; therefore, most of international organizations continuously employ people from other countries in spite of cultural differences. International organizations across the globe are quite progressively more concerned in endorsing its culture to continuously develop their power, harmonization, and integration within their corresponding offices in other countries. However, it is more likely for them to encounter different national cultures in which the primary suppositions regarding individuals may diverge from that of the national and international organization. The divergence can be viewed and exemplified within the context of an international company’s purpose and its corresponding actions, capability and viewpoint, supervising greatly and wider mixture of workers at the same time considering variations on their respective lives, ‘external’ pressure, and stages of threat to the company (Author, date). These divergences might deter the recognition and execution of its members’ performance specifically in relation to professional development, evaluation and even reparation scheme, and socialization process. In viewing the differences of culture of an international organizational to a national culture, Nancy Adler (2007) observes that most often than not that national culture prevails over organizational culture. In regards to the possibility of organizational culture versus national culture, Andler (2007) concludes that the latter is much more intense in lessening the significance of the former. This has been supported by Laurent’s pronouncement of significant existence of difference in culture amongst executives in an international organization; thereby, relating the possibility of resistance of members to an international organizational culture. Development of Strong International Organizational Culture Indubitably both organization and national cultures have dominant influence on an individual particularly if a person is working in a multinational company and when it comes to dealing with conflicting matters. An organizational culture can be identified as informal whereas national culture is a formal one.  An organization can be supportive and pleasing adventuresome in a nation where its citizens are normally not risk-takers or, the other way around.  These kinds of instances necessitate solution in order to realign the organizational culture to its personage of all members. In developing a strong organizational culture in spite of very strong differences in national culture, according to the article entitled ‘The global organization’ (author, date) there are three strategies such as to ‘ignore’, to ‘minimize’, or to ‘utilize’ a manager can implement depending on the degree of necessity in primarily addressing the divergences in global demands and incorporation, and sensitivity in the local setting. These strategies can be applied one at a time or in various combinations so long as it can make the organization much effective and efficient in delivering its products or service. In the first strategy of ignoring the cultural differences, the supposition is that ‘business is business’ and professionals from respective various fields have no differences across the globe. In this manner, home country’s rules and regulations are conveniently possible to convey in any other host countries in which it is anticipated to be applied by establishing personalize preparatory establishment in order to instill to their corresponding employees the organization’s core principles and ideals. With this, the distinctive culture of the organization is being distributed to all employees at the same time preserving the quality of product and services of the organization—a mere expression of ‘universalism’ of an organizational culture (author, date). This can be exemplified in McDonald’s and Disneyland in expressing and preserving their fundamental cultural identity in spite of their establishment in many parts of the globe. Indeed, there are some instances where the ignore strategy cannot possibly and purely be applied since other countries greatly emphasize their national culture even to the extent of expressing it in their constitution. In this case, an organization may choose the second strategy which is to ‘minimize’ impact specifically its detrimental implication of cultural differences. Although, it still identifies the differences as an essential factor, the overall notion is that it brings difficulty and even dangers in ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization. This would entail of ‘homogenizing’ by generating likeness or in the process of isolation through separation to lessen probable conflict and in the ultimate sense. On the other hand, the execution of homogeneous rules and regulation in intensification of organizational culture—ethnocentrism, is quite easier said than done. This is why this kind of strategy is oftentimes refused to accept by many organizations. In relating the third strategy, its motto is to ‘Think global, act local’ in order to ‘utilize’ differences of cultures at the same time addressing both international integration and local receptiveness (author, date). This can be done by means of expanding international corporate components (e.g. much differentiated product) generating a formation with double exposure to a state’s executive— in charge of considering local receptiveness, as well as corporate managers— in charge of international integration . Also, international organization must make use of an arrangement of an objective method in selecting process at the same time with due consideration to employee self-selection in order to institute a much more harmonious international employees relevant to international organizational culture. Conclusion Evidently enough, national culture cannot possibly be ignored in relating the response of members in an international organization. The reactions of employees when it comes to incompatibility and contradictions in the national and organizational cultures are inclined to the former. With this, it is necessary to for international organizations to find employees who are adequately suitable to the organizational culture at the same time establishing a critical evaluation of corresponding national culture versus their own culture. In the event of facing impending divergence between national and organizational cultures, an international organization must endeavor to have anticipatory actions for them to maintain their employees inspired as well as dedicated to the organization’s activity. This can be done by means of implementing any of the aforementioned strategies like to ‘ignore’, to ‘minimize’, or to ‘utilize’ or any combinations possible depending on the necessity of the organization. An international organization may be obliged to modify or lessen some features its culture even if it’s doing fine well in another place—a compromising but somehow a necessity in realigning national and organizational cultures achieving a much stronger international organization culture. References Adler, N & Gundersen, A 2007. ‘International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior’. 5th edn. South-Western College Pub. Björkman, I & Galunic, C 2004, ‘Integrative case study Lincoln Electric in China’ in Briscoe and Schuler, International human resource management, 2nd ed, Routledge, Great Britain, pp. 420-435. De Cieri, H & Dowling, P ‘Strategic international human resource management in multinational enterprises: developments and directions’ pp.15-30. Dowling, P 1999, ‘Completing the Puzzle: Issues in the Development of the Field of International Human Resource Management’, Management International Review, Gabler Verlag, p. 27. Evans, P 1993, ‘Dosing the glue: Applying human resource technology to build global organizations’ in Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management pp. 21–54. Goulet, P & Schweiger, ‘Managing culture and human resources in mergers and acquisitions‘, pp. 405-426. Hofstede, G & Hofstede, G P 2005, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenzweig, P ‘The dual logics behind international human resource management: pressures for global integration and local responsiveness’ pp. 36-48. Schuler, R & Jackson, S 1987, ‘Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource Management Practices’ in The Academy of Management, New York University, pp. 207-219. Short, D & Callahan, J 2005, ‘’Would I Work for a Global Corporation?’ And Other Ethical Questions for HRD’ in Human Resource Development International, Routledge, USA, pp. 121-125. Author, date ,‘Culture and human resource management’, edition, Name of publication, .pp. 160-175. Author, date ,‘The global organization’, edition, Name of publication, .pp.253-289. Author, date ,‘The globalization of human resource management’, edition, Name of publication, .pp.9-39. Read More