Theories of National Culture - Essay Example

? Theories of National Culture Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts (19, January, Introduction Management experts have long been interested in studying national cultures because of the impact they can have on the employees and in turn the on the organizational culture. Different theories and models explain national cultures by describing characteristics of cultures. The aim of theories of national culture is to better understand national culture so that employees can be better understood. Theories of national cultures although helpful are often criticized because they over generalize characteristics of culture and ignore individual differences between employees and organisational choice of structure. In this paper we will attempt to find whether this criticism is valid or not. While answering this we will also shed light on the ways in which organisations can become more or less similar to each other. The role of globalisation will especially be discussed. Arguments both in favour of and against national culture theories will be evaluated to complete the critical analysis. Some theories of National Culture Some of the famous theories of national culture include Hofsdete’s national culture theory, Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars model, and Edward Hall’s theory. It is important here to understand the link between national culture and organisational or corporate culture. Globalisation has reduced boundaries all over the world and this has led to highly diverse organizations. Employees belonging to different cultures and nationalities are working together in pursuit of the same goals. Employees are greatly influenced by their national cultures and their behaviour is an extension of their cultural values. Managers have to handle diversity and create a corporate culture that is flexible enough to accommodate people from different backgrounds. This is the link between organisational culture and national culture. Hofstde’s national culture theory has 5 dimensions and each explains a specific characteristic of national culture (Hofstede, 1983). All the dimensions can help us better understand the cultural values and beliefs of people who belong to those cultures. Most of the relevant information required is given by these 5 dimensions. The factors that distinguish national cultures from each other are grouped into 5 clusters. The first dimension of the theory is power distance that explains the distribution of power in a particular culture (Hofstede, 1983). More specifically this dimension is concerned with the degree of equality or inequality that exists in a culture. The second dimension is of individualism that is related to the extent to which individual or collective interests are pursued in a culture. The third dimension is uncertainty avoidance which explains the degree to which ambiguity is tolerated in a culture or a society (1983). The fourth dimension is masculinity which refers to the degree to which traditional masculine roles are accepted in the society. Initially Hofstede came up with four dimensions but later on he added another dimension of long term orientation or Confucianism (Hofstede, 1994). This dimension refers to the long term focus on traditions and values. All these 5 dimensions help us understand a particular culture better as this theory equips us to evaluate a culture on specific dimensions. Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars also gave a model of national cultures that included 7 dimensions (Hamden-Turner &Trompenaars, 2000). Universalism and pluralism is the first dimension that refers to the degree to which law or personal relationships are considered important in a society. The second dimension is individualism vs. communitarianism which is similar to the dimension of individualism of Hofstede’s model. The third dimension is called ‘specific or diffuse’ which explains how responsibilities are assigned in a society. The other dimensions include affectivity vs. Neutrality, inner directed vs. Outer directed, achieved status vs. Ascribed status, and sequential time vs. Synchronic time. These dimensions talk about emotions, control over environment, status, and task performance in a culture. The theory of Edward Hall is also explains national cultures by his ice berg model. He gave an analogy of culture with respect to ice berg arguing that like ice berg cultures too have some portion visible and some portion submerged (not visible) (Hall, 1976). The visible or external aspects of the culture are behaviours and beliefs while the internal aspects of the culture are value & thought patterns (1976). The internal aspects are difficult to change as compared to the visible or external aspects. Above we have discussed three theories of national cultures. It was important to understand what these theories suggest and how they are helpful in understanding of national cultures of employees working in an organisation in order to critically analyze whether they ignore individual differences and organisational choice of structure or not. In the next section we will provide arguments both in support of national culture theories and against them. Arguments in Favour of Theories of National Cultures There are many arguments given in favour of theories of national cultures. These theories help us better understand cultures of different nationalities which in turn help design organisational culture. They provide good definitions of cultures and include characteristics on which we can evaluate and understand national cultures. It is also possible through these theories to understand employees better by knowing more about their culture and then incorporating everything into corporate culture. These theories can also help managers in their handling of different types of employees. These theories are also easy enough to understand and apply in a variety of situations. Theories of national culture provide information about emotions and motives of employees working in an organisation because both motives and emotions are culture bound (Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This is an important argument in support of theories of Hofstede and Hall. Theories of national culture help us better understand the cultural orientation of employees. This information plays a key role in managing employees in an organisation. These theories tell managers how to motivate employees by informing them about the emotional needs of employees. For example some employees may want to work alone and some may prefer working in groups because of their different cultures. Theories of national cultures provide managers with relevant information for deciding whom to assign to which task. The presence of certain characteristics upon which national cultures are explained is also a positive point of national culture theories. Hofstede’s theory and Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars model both have specific dimensions upon which they define culture of a society. These dimensions are general enough to incorporate all the important factors of an organisation. This makes theories of national culture desirable because they are fairly accurate in their dealing of national cultures (Sondergaard 1994). Validity of dimensions is also depicted by the overlapping of dimensions in different models. National cultures are understood according to certain dimensions or characteristics which is a good way to go forward. The assumption of national culture theories that employees are generally affected by their cultural orientation is fairly logical. People who belong to a culture learn to follow the social norms approved by their culture. They are also influenced by the traditions followed in their culture. From an early age we start to learn about the world through our environment and that environment is shaped by culture. This is why culture has an important role to play in shaping the beliefs and attitudes of an employee. The effect of cultural orientation on employees can also play a role in their work within the company because culture lays down the basic rules of social interaction. When employees work together they interact and therefore culture plays a role in their work. The assumption therefore that employees are affected by their cultures is not totally invalid. Another advantage of cultural theories is that they allow us to measure certain characteristics and this enables us to better compare two cultures. They provide relevant scales to measure characteristics and this is how comparisons are made between two different cultures. This comparison is vital in order to understand the differences that exist between two cultures that are considered similar. Measurement of cultural attributes also brings objectivity to the whole process of understanding culture. Simplicity of these theories is also an attribute that justify using them in organisations. It is easy to use because it provides a good generalisation that can be attributed to all employees from a particular culture. A manger can easily apply the models to find about a particular culture and can then decide as to how to deal with an employee who belongs to that culture. No calculations are required and this makes theories of national culture efficient to use in the realm of business world. It is also important to admit that it is not possible to study each and every culture alone therefore some dimensions are required on which cultures can be studied. These dimensions are given by theories of national culture after systematic research. There might not be another way to study national cultures. Theories of national cultures also ended the dearth of research work in the field culture especially Hofstede (Sondergaard 1994). This is another argument that is given in support of theories of national culture. In the above section we gave arguments in favour of theories of national culture. In our critical assessment it is important to look at both sides of the debate therefore below we will present arguments against the effectiveness of theories of national culture. Criticism of Theories of National Cultures Many scholars are highly critical of theories of national cultures as well. They believe that such theories ignore individual differences between employees and organisational choice. Because of the generalisations Hofstede’s 5 dimensions and Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars model make when explaining national cultures they do ignore the fact that all people belonging to a culture may not be similar. This shatters the foundation of the theories of national culture as it raises issues about the theories and in turn the managerial decision making. Theories of national culture also ignore organisation’s choice of structure as it over emphasizes on the importance of national culture. All these are strong criticism of theories of national culture. The argument that theories of national culture over generalise people and in turn ignore individual differences between employees is often cited by critics of such theories. It is true that cultural models take into account only specific characteristics and implicitly ignore individual differences to a certain extent. For example in Hofstede’s model certain characteristics are given to national cultures and they are rated accordingly on a scale. Now it is considered that every person belonging to a particular culture will elicit same characteristics consistent with his or her national culture. It is argued that this is not true because individuals are different from each other and such generalisation is not right. It is argued that in theories of national culture no difference is made between ‘practices’ and ‘perception of practices’ (McSweeney, 2002). This is another criticism that is related to the differences in individuals. Models of national cultures are based on generalisation and it is expected that everyone behaves in a similar manner. It is also important to understand that actual cultural practices may differ from the perception that exists about a culture. Such differences are based on individuals and their perception, and this is not taken into account in theories of national culture. In many countries different cultures exist and people live in different pockets with each being entirely different from other. Theories of national culture, like Hofstede’s model, assume that nations have a homogenous culture (Dorfman & Howell, 1988). This is not true because national culture is a set of regional cultures and the two might differ greatly. This is why there is no valid ground for believing that national culture represents belief and practices of the entire population of the country. Theories of national cultures also ignore individual differences over time because they are based on survey that was conducted at a particular time (Newman, 1996). This is also a reason why individual differences are not accounted in theories of national culture. It is said that culture is not something fixed rather it is fluid. It keeps on changing and therefore survey is not the appropriate method to explain national cultures and their influence on employees. Because information is collected in a single point in time therefore environmental factors that are subject to change may have an influence on the findings. Organisation choice of structure also plays a great role when it comes to employee behaviour in a firm. Employee behaviour, it can be argued, is only partly influenced by national culture. It is mainly influenced by the type of organisational structure in place in the organisation. The hierarchical positions in the company tell employees how to perform tasks in the organisation. This is largely ignored by theories of national culture. All of them assume that employees are influenced by their national cultures and not by organisational choice of structure. This is also a criticism of theories of national culture. Theories of National Culture: A Failure? Above we have presented both arguments in favour of and against theories of national culture. In this section we will conclude as to whether theories of national culture fail to consider the impact of individual differences and organisational choice. After considering arguments from both schools of thought we conclude that theories of national culture are not a complete failure. They are equipped to consider the impact of individual differences. Theories of national culture also take into account impact of organisational choice on employees working in a firm. We can say this because theories of national culture, although dwell in grounds of generalisation, are the best way to analyze national cultures. It is necessary to generalise because each and every individual cannot be understood. Standards are to be set upon which analysis is done and therefore theories of national culture are the best possible alternatives available for managers to understand employees. These theories do not directly take into account personal differences but they provide a framework that facilitates manager to understand employees better. It can be safely said that theories of national culture provides ground for analyzing individual differences between employees. Organisational choice of structure is also incorporated in theories of national culture. Factors like masculinity and power distance represent the response of employees if equality (or inequality) exists in the organisation and if gender roles are strong. Given an organisational structure managers can easily identify how an employee will feel if he or she is given, let’s say, power or freedom to decide. The impact of organisational culture is therefore incorporated in theories of national cultures. Organisational structure should also be seen as a kind of culture and employees should be understood with the help of models of national culture. Ways in which Organisations can be Similar Organisations can become more or less similar to each other by following similar standards of leadership, management, and organisational structure. Globalisation has impacted businesses all over the world. Bets business practices have also become globalised and every company is attempting to follow them in order to het successful. The presence of multinational corporations is also an important factor in the process of globalisation. MNCs play a great role in making organisations similar as mostly sub divisions of MNCs follow the same structure and business model. International regulations and global trade unions of countries can play a huge role in making organisations similar. If similar regulations are set all over the world then organisations can also make similar models that can work all over the world. This can also play a huge role in expansion of multinational corporations. Regulatory barriers are being reduced all over the world in order to attract foreign investment and employment in economies. Globalisation has also affected customers greatly and this can be another in which organisations can become similar to each other. When client base all over the world will demand similar products then organisations automatically will replicate their business model all over the world. This is another manner in which organisations can become similar. Growth of educational sector in developed countries can also contribute to similarity of organisations. Managers are getting educated in developed countries and they are studying the same literature therefore they are more likely to apply similar models in organisation they go to work. Cultural diversity is a key factor because all organisations are employing people from diverse backgrounds. This also makes organisations similar to each other. Conclusion Theories of national culture are well equipped in taking into account the individual differences and organisational choice of structure. These theories are a good predicator of employee behaviour and can help managers in deciding how to shape the culture of organisation. This is why the efficacy of theories of national culture cannot be ignored. Generalisation is important in order to develop models and therefore criticism on theories of national cultures is not valid. Regulations, globalisation of customers, education of managers and cultural diversity can play an important role in making organisations similar. Bibliography Dorfman, P. W. &J. P. Howell. 1988, Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, vol. 3, pp. 127-150 Hamden-Turner C. &Trompenaars, F. 2000, Building cross-cultural competence, Chichester: John Wiley Hofstede, G. 1983, National Cultures in Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 46-74 Hofstede, G. 1994, The business of international business is culture, International Business Review, vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 1-14 McSweeney, B. 2002, Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural differences and their consequences: A Triumph of faith- A Failure of Analysis, in Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89- 118 Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G. 2010, The Hofstede model Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85-110 Newman, K. L. 1996, Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 27, no.4, pp. 753 Sondergaard, M. 1994, Hofstede's consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications, Organization Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 447 Read More