»culture«

Geert Hofstede: Cultural Constraints in Management Theories

[p.18]
"Verité en-deça des Pyrenées, erreur au-delà" - There are truths on this side of the Pyrenées which are falsehoods on the other [quoting Blaise Pascal].

Hofstede's point is clear: "there are no such things as universal management theories",all theories are always bound to the cultural environment of the theorist. He proves his thesis by introducing management practices as conducted in different countries and by integrating them into a historical context.

Hofstede starts off by clarifying the etymological background of the words to manage, manager and management. The eldest record is to be found in Shakespeare's "Love's Labour's lost" from 1588: "Adieu, valour! rust, papier! be still, drum! for your manager is in love; yea, he loveth." The stem is based on the latin "manus" for hand and the italian "maneggiare" for training the horses in the manege. Later this idea was transferred to skillful handling in general. Hofstede makes also a connection to the french "menage" as in running the household.
Scott Adam Smith (1776) uses the group of words to describe the process (=management) as well as the people (=manager) involved in operating joint stock companies.
In the American sense - and at this point Hofstede already emphasizes the cultural constraints of definitions - management is understood as a class of people. "This class
(1) does not own a business but sells its skills to act on behalf of the owners and
(2) does not produce personally but is indispensable for making others produce, through motivation."

In contrast to the American idea of management he gives an overview over several countries:

• Germany
• France
• Japan
• The Netherlands
• The United States
• The Overseas Chinese

Hofstede also gives an overview over Russia and China. I will leave this out since he relies his assumptions only on literature.

[p.22]
Hofstede summarizes his findings that "Local management is part of this [= the cultural] infrastructure; it cannot be imported in package form. Assuming that with so-called modern management techniques and theories outsiders can develop a country has proven a deplorable arrogance. At best, one can hope for a dialogue between equals with the locals, in which the Western partner acts as the expert in Western technology and the local partner as the expert in local culture, habits, and feelings."

[p.23]
Establishing a theory of culture in management Hofstede concludes that management has a different meaning in all cultures. To understand the idea of particular management, its processes and problems one needs "considerable historical and cultural insight into local conditions. [...] Management cannot be isolated from other processes taking place in society." Management reflects and integrates the cultural specific ideas of family, politics, religion, science, ... To reveal cultural differences Hofstede conducted several dimensions characterizing cultures:
[p.24]

• power distance: in how far do people feel to be equal
• individualism - collectivism
• masculinity - feminism: the first assembling values such as assertiveness, performance, success, competition, while the latter refers to values such as warm personal relationships, service, and solidarity)
• uncertainty avoidance: are clear rules needed, are new things anticipated openly or rejected
• long-term - short-term orientation

While I had read another paper about these dimension already before starting my thesis, I leave Hofstede's statistics out at this point. I find the dimensions rather abstract and not helpful for understanding a culture. Much prefer anecdotes and stories. But that, of course, does not match with Hofstede who at this point wants to transfer practice into theory.


in: D.C.Thomas: Readings and Cases in International Management; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.

Hall states that every organism controls and changes nature by means of extension. Extensions can either be materialistic (for example a knife extends the teeth in their function of cutting things) or .... (like language for example). "Extensions often permit man to solve problems in satisfactory ways, to evolve and adapt at great speed without changing the basic structure of his body. However, the extension does something else: it permits man to examine and perfect what is inside the head. Once something is externalized, it is possible to look at it, study it, change it, perfect it, and at the same time learn important things about oneself." (p.29)
To summarize it in a broad sense, Hall sees extensions to improve human talents: take the example of eating or speaking as introduced, or the idea of bridging distances faster by taking the car, seeing things better by taking a microscope, taking photos to extend the visual memory, ...
As in the chapter before he takes the example of language which to him is the "symbolization of something that happened, could have happened, or is in the processes of happening" (p.28) but language is never the event itself and it is not even the thought itself (mistaking the symbol and its reference is what Hall calls "extension transference"). Language is just an extension, just like mathematics is an extension as well. Einstein, for example, could have visualized his ideas in words as well but decided mathematics to be more suitable. His insights were externalized into a constructed system so that they could be put to use.
Words and numbers are different descriptive system and as extensions they have their disadvantages or limitations. Just like a knife is good for cutting but not for chewing or a car extends certain functions of the legs but not all (it can't climb for example, or dance).

So, summarizing this: models as introduced in chapter 1 are extensions, right?!

back to the table of content
further to chapter three

I finally finished the book + reviewing it. Yippieh!

About the author:
Edward T. Hall is an American anthropologist born in 1914. His cross-cultural theories offspring his own experiences: on the one hand he lived and worked with Navajo and Hopi in American reservation. On the other hand he trained foreign service officers preparing them mostly for Asia and Europe where he had done research as well.
He defined ideas as high- and low-context-cultures and discovered the culturally-bound concept of personal space.
(for quick reference check: wikipedia)

His book "Beyond Culture" is made up of an overview over different characteristics of cultures, the problem to overcome your own cultural heritage, and the call to engage in cross-cultural encounters.

Following up the review of the different chapters:

1. The Paradox of Culture
2. Man as Extension
3. Consistency and Life
4. Hidden Culture
5. Rhythm and Body Movement
6. Context and Meaning
7. Context, High and Low
8. Why Context?
9. Situation - Culture's Building Block
10. Action Chains + chapter 11: Covert Culture and Action Chains
11. jumping chapters 12 and 13
12. and concluding with chapters 14 and 15: Culture as an Irational Force and Culture as Identification

While these summaries are meant for me to understand what I actually read, I'll add some own thoughts later.

Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping - Cultural Sensemaking in Context
by Joyce S. Osland and Allan Bird

[p.58]
Osland and Bird criticize that cross-cultural training as well as research in this field only move between bipolar cultural dimensions - describing one culture as more individualistic than another, or less easy with uncertainty, ... Thus they pretty much explain why I did not bother too much about the dimensions as introduced by Hofstede. This is not to neglect the importance of this method to compare and describe cultures - the dimensions are fundamental when learning about cultures. Nevertheless it has its shortcomings.

[p.59]
Osland and Bird argue that describing a culture based on dimensions allows a better cultural understanding but at the same time creates stereotypes of entire cultures. They call it sophisticated stereotyping. This is to be differentiated from low-level stereotypes which are "often based on lack of personal contact and an irrational dislike of people who are different from oneself". Sophisticated stereotyping is based on theoretical concepts and therefore lacks the negative attributions normally associated with stereotypes. This often results in not recognizing them in their limiting character. Based on Adler (1997) they introduce the idea of "helpful stereotypes". As such they should be

• consciously hold
• rather descriptive than evaluative
• accurate in their description of a behavioral norm
• modifiable according to further observation and experience.

[p.60]
Osland and Bird see cultural learning analogous to putting a puzzle together. While the picture on the box works like a guide it does not really say anything about the single pieces. Only by putting more pieces together the overall picture becomes clearer. "Similarly, as one acquires more and varied experiences in the new culture, one can develop an appreciation for how certain attitudes and behaviors fit the puzzle and create an internal logic of the new culture." Sophisticated stereotypes in a way prevents to see the huge variety of shapes and suggests that putting them together is rather easy while actually it can never be achieved to create a wholly picture this way.

[p.61]
While general characterizations can only reflect attitudes and sort them in comparison to other cultures, they completely neglect context. Osland and Bird later [p.65] give an example of Americans who are generally defined to show a high tolerance of uncertainty but when it comes to business contracts for example they cannot bare any uncertainty at all only believing in the written and signed word.
The authors call these incidents contradicting the overall picture paradoxes. They warn that ignoring the context limits cultural understanding and "prevents rather than opens up opportunities for learning and exploration". This goes in line with Hofstede who was aware of the fact that his system of cultural dimension was only an abstraction and had warned to not overly use it.

[p.62]
As an alternative or addition Osland and Bird introduce several sources of paradoxes of which I only summarize a few.

1. First of all it is a matter of statistics. Of 100 people filling in a questionnaire 63 might anticipate new things easily which would give the overall impression of a society with a rather low uncertainty avoidance. Nevertheless there are still 37 people who would rather reject new things. Scales can only show tendencies.
2. This makes obvious, too, that within cultures there are a lot of unresolved cultural issues which from the inside as well as from the outside are perceived as paradoxes.
3. Paradoxes also appear in the context of role differences. While the people of a culture could, for example, believe in egalitarianism in general, CEOs could be allowed autocratic behavior. This would also be an example of a high power distance in an overall low power distance culture.
4. Other paradoxes come about because it is difficult to differentiate real from epoused values. People simply do not live up to their own ideals. While in many cultures equality is much anticipated, everybody works hard to gain power and influence for him/herself.
5. [p.63] Just as with values according to rules, context might judge certain values over others. Lies, for example, are normally unacceptable a lot of incidents allow so-called white lies.

Osland and Bird come up with a model of sense-making trying to allow a diagnosis of perceived paradoxes.
They ask to first index the context based on observation. The second step is to make attributions. Thirdly, possible schemas are to be conducted. These schemas reveal cultural values and history. This process reveals that the behavior perceived as paradoxon is merely a re-arranging of values.

[p.64]

This is the schema as introduced and underneath how I tried to employ the model. (you understand why I don't like abstractions - I can never make them fit)

Osland and Bird gave an example of a charity organization calling for money in the States. While the Americans are considered a rather individualstic society in regards of cultural dimension, they spend quite a lot of money and time on charity. A paradoxon? Yes! Indeed! At several levels! First of all it does not match the perception based on the dimensional model. Then .... and that's the point where I get confused.
The other part that bugs me about the model is the fact that they start confusing history and value. The actually put "individualism" as a cultural history but I don't quite agree with that, so there goes another question mark...

[p.65]
So, while I have quite some problems with the abstraction of a model I still like what came out of it: It reflects pretty well the idea of culture as defined by Geerts (1973). "[He] maintains that 'culture is best seen not as complexes of concrete behavior patterns - customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters - [...] but as a set of control mechanisms - plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call 'programs') - for the governing of behavior.'"

As Osland and Bird acknowledge the importance of factual and conceptual knowledge in facing different cultures, they also call for attributional knowledge.
[p.66]
Factual knowledge would describe knowledge such as that Japanese often work in small group. Conceptual knowledge would back this up with the information that Japanese live in an communal society. But this would not explain non-communal activities or when or when not communal activities will take place. This latter, attributional knowledge can be gained by personal experience, by learning vicariously (= nachempfinden) from other people's experience as condensed in cultural assimilators or by cultural mentoring carried through by people of the host culture or long-term expatriates, who would both function as live cultural assimilators.

Osland and Bird claim that "learning another culture occurs in a dialectic fashion -thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." While the thesis is made on base of sophisticated stereotypes, critical incidents revealing paradoxes provoke an antithesis while synthesis is achieved by understanding which values are regarded more important in which context.

[p.67]
Consequently, they see cross-cultural training moving along the following steps:

1. Recognizing the complexity of one's own culture.
   This includes tracing the internal cultural logic back to its socioeconomic, political and historical roots. It also calls for analyzing in-culture paradoxes/variations in behavior based on regional, organizational or individual differences. Looking on different values (as for example friendliness) it would be necessary to ask questions such as: "Are all people friendly? Are they always friendly? In which incidents are they not friendly anymore? How come?"
2. Studying cultural dimensions as a basic tool.
   This means to learn about typical incidents and behaviors and trace them back to cultural values. Characterization along bipolar dimensions allows to compare two cultures; thus to distinct between cultures and to gain conceptual knowledge.
3. Acquiring skills in cultural observation and behavioral flexibility.
   This asks to look on incidents perceived as paradoxes. Questioning sophisticated stereotypes practices observational and interpretive skills. This can be achieved by role-playing or by working with videos.
4. Studying or experiencing one culture in-depth.
   This means to gain attributional knowledge form cultural mentors. Additionally, extensive research is to be made. Further knowledge is gained by actual cultural immersion.
5. Learning context-appropriate behavior. (actually fits to point 4)
   This calls to actively ask the how's and why's. "How do managers encourage their staff?", "Why does that work for them?"

Osland and Bird conclude calling expatriates to not give up their stereotypes but to hold them consciously in order to modify and change them when necessary. They suggest to find a cultural mentor and to learn cultural schemas. In combination with examining paradoxes this will lead to a deeper understanding of the underlying values and thus promote cultural understanding.

published in: D.C.Thomas: Readings and Cases in International Management; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.

[p.23]
Hofstede defines culture to be a mere concept which is useful to anticipate reactions and behaviors. It is a construct which reveals itself in speech and behavior but cannot be observed directly.

[p.26]
Hofstede takes the metaphor of a forest to describe culture. Just like the different plants and animals in a forest the individuals of a culture can be very different from each other. "National cultures differ primarily in the fundamental, invisible values held by a majority of their members, acquired in early childhood."
Hofstede furthermore differentiates into organizational cultures. "Organizational cultures are a much more superficial phenomenon residing mainly in the visible practices of the organization, acquired by socialization of the new members who join the company."

In both quotes, I'd like to take out the the ways of how culture in both cases is acquired. It seems a little too rigid to limit cultural learning to childhood. And to assume workers to start at a young age in one company and stay there for long-term employment seems rather old-fashioned.
Nevertheless I think it to be important to think of cultures in different fields. And it is certainly true that not two companies work the same way. The question is how a company which operates in two different cultures transfers its image/culture. Which influence does the particular culture have.
The process of cultural adaption is well known from cases in advertisement: Coca-Cola adresses its customers in India quite different than those in the States. But which philosophies are celebrated within organizations?
This reminded me that I still wanted to organize some self-image brochures portraying the same company in different countries

Geert Hofstede: Cultural Constraints in Management Theories
in: D.C.Thomas: Readings and Cases in International Management; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.