By Tom Lester
Ants, those masters of collaboration, have made their species some of the most successful on the planet. In contrast, tigers walk alone, and are in grave danger of extinction. The message for business is this: in the modern world, we must collaborate or die.
Too often, however, in many UK companies, suc- cessful collaboration – both internal and external – happens by accident rather than design, con- trasting vividly with many overseas rivals.
There are good reasons why eff ective collabora- tion is growing rapidly. Business operations are becoming steadily more fl exible at every level of the organization. Non-core activities are outsourced, and procurement has become a worldwide activity centred on China. Satisfying customers at home demands an unprecedented level of co-operation unimpeded by rigid hierar- chies and departmental boundaries.
Flatter organizations depend not on authority but on teamwork for eff ective action, and networks of individuals may stretch halfway round the globe and connect only electronically.
The truly multinational executive, able to work eff ectively anywhere in the world with any nationality, remains a rare beast, and ordinary staff therefore need to understand and learn from diff erent cultures to achieve the right level of collaboration.
A foreign joint venture or alliance, for example, may be agreed in Mumbai with great enthusiasm
at board level, but the hoped-for results will only materialize if operating staff at all levels in Birmingham are ready and able to work with their opposite numbers.
Nationality, religion or corporate culture may be the big hurdle, but it is important to also realize that even within the same organization wider cultural gaps can exist between, say, R&D and fi nance as between the R&D teams of two partners. Wherever it occurs, the failure to understand can be disastrous. Rover is a tragic example. Back in the 1980s, when shop-fl oor col- laboration in the UK car industry was near zero, Rover nonetheless managed to form a partner- ship with the Japanese group Honda to fi ll its vital new model programme.
But the arrogance of the Rover managers and the lack of a learning culture prevented them from obtaining the real benefi ts of the relationship, according to Professor Lord Bhattacharyya, head of the Warwick Manufacturing Group. Later, in 1992, when BMW bought the Rover business, communication with the German managers was even worse (exacerbated by political infi ghting on the German side).
Failure was the inevitable and bitter result. No doubt, ex-Rover patriots today will see the some- what similar collapse of the DaimlerChrysler link as salve for wounded pride. Rather like Rover, DaimlerChrysler was dogged by poor collabora- tion and infi ghting, which stemmed in part
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 50
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 50 12/17/14 5:32 PM12/17/14 5:32 PM
51 Activity 2.1
Questions
1. ‘Individualism’ and ‘Uncertainty Avoidance’ are the two dimensions proposed by Hofstede which are mentioned in the text as influential factors in international collaboration. The text gives the ‘scores’
of the UK, USA, Germany and Japan on these dimensions to illustrate the differences.
a) Look up the scores of these same countries on the remaining cultural dimensions on www.geert-hofstede.com
b) How could score differences on these other dimensions also influence collaboration between the four cultures mentioned? Give concrete examples, if possible.
from national cultural diff erences and traditions between German and US managers.
The outcome in both cases will have come as no surprise to Professor Geert Hofstede, who 30 years ago pioneered the study of cultural diversity in 56 countries using IBM’s worldwide database. He has since been joined by others, notably a fellow Dutchman, Fons Trompenaars, and the American, Craig Storti.
Interest in their work is currently reviving after some big companies, including IBM, found that trying to impose a single corporate culture around the globe did not lead to better collaboration.
Two of the fi ve ‘cultural dimensions’ that Prof.
Hofstede derived from his database go some way to explaining the diffi culties faced by Honda, BMW and Daimler-Benz managers in collaborat- ing with their opposite numbers at Rover and Chrysler respectively.
One is individualism, defi ned as the degree to which ties between individuals – family as well as busi- ness colleagues – are loose or tight. The UK score as assessed by Prof. Hofstede is 89 out of a possible 100, indicating a high degree of individualism, exceeded only by the US with 91. Germany is a little above the European average at 67, but Japan scores 46.
On another dimension, uncertainty avoidance – the degree to which individuals feel uncomfortable in unstructured environments – the Japanese score 92, the Germans 65, the Americans 46 and the Brits 35. In real terms, the lack of precise rules and procedures at Longbridge, Rover’s
main factory, may have made the BMW team uncomfortable from the outset.
The cultural guru’s great contribution may lie less in detailed analysis of deeply held cultural attitudes and more in helping companies anti- cipate and understand behaviour patterns that their foreign managers may display in their home territory, and the diff erent patterns that they dis- play when transferred to the UK.
As immigration grows, and London expands even further as an international fi nancial centre, it becomes an important skill to be able to work eff ectively with and through executives of widely diff erent backgrounds. Nationality, however, is not the only cause of non-communication, and not even the main cause, points out Kris Wadia, Accenture’s executive partner for global sourcing.
‘Put fi ve English-speakers in a room to agree a set of tasks, and each will come away with a slightly diff erent perspective’, he says. Add in personal fi efdoms, ancient IT systems and complex and inappropriate organization and reward structures, and eff ective collaboration will sink rapidly.
Accenture’s Mr. Wadia fi nds that with modern technology, companies can set up the infrastruc- ture and telecommunications links between units relatively easily. What is more diffi cult and time-consuming are the soft issues, such as training UK managers to work together, and with foreign counterparts, and vice-versa.
The more sophisticated the communications systems, the more room there is for misunder- standing. Ants have no such problems.
Source: adapted from ‘Masters of collaboration’, Financial Times , 29/6/2007, p. 8 (Lester, T.) , © The Financial Times Limited. All Rights Reserved.
➨
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 51
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 51 12/17/14 5:32 PM12/17/14 5:32 PM
52
Chapter 2 Dimensions of culture: Hofstede and GLOBE
ACTIVITY 2.2
Read the following article and answer the questions below it.
Hofstede versus the GLOBE project
On initial examination, the findings of the GLOBE project appear to be an ambitious and elaborate extension of Hofstede’s research, a ‘development of Hofstede’s doctrine’ and ‘a corrective of Hofstede’s model’
(Minkov et al. , 2011: 14).
Although it may have led to a better understanding of Hofstede’s work, the GLOBE findings challenged one of the basis tenants of the ‘doctrine’, namely Hofstede’s perception of the phenomenon of culture.
The definition which Hofstede devised (‘the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from another’ – see Concept 1.1 ) has values at its core. These are the invisible elements which are reflected in three layers: rituals, heroes and symbols – the visible manifestations of culture. In short, Hofstede (2001: 11) sees cultural values as driving practices reflected as such in his version of the ‘onion’ metaphor: ‘These are pictured as the layers of an onion around a core that consists of values’
( Figure 2.2 ).
2. The text mentions that within the same organisation wider cultural gaps can exist between, say, R&D and finance as between the R&D teams of two partners.
To what extent can Hofstede’s cultural dimensions be used to explain such cultural gaps?
3. Now that Hofstede has proposed a new dimension that we called the ‘sixth’ dimension (see Spotlight 2.3 ), what added value does it offer when analysing this article?
Figure 2.2 The ‘onion diagram’: manifestations of culture at different levels of depth
Source: Hofstede, 2001: 11.
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 52
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 52 12/17/14 5:32 PM12/17/14 5:32 PM
53 Activity 2.2 The GLOBE approach followed a different line. As Javidan et al. (2006) explain, the project chose a differ- ent view of culture:
We followed Schein’s (1992) view of culture as a product of a collective’s attempts to address two sets of group issues: external adaptation and internal integration. Culture evolves as a collective adapts to ongoing challenges surviving in the face of external threats and opportunities and managing relations among its members.
Javidan et al. , 2006: 900 They view culture as a phenomenon which is not only to do with values but also the practices used to deal with challenges which their society faces.
This holistic view led to questionnaires being devised which were not focused on what the individual respondents considered desirable, but instead on what they considered the society in which they lived should desire. As described in Concept 2.2 , the individuals were asked to describe their societies as they are and as they should be.
This approach put Hofstede’s assumption to the test that cultural values drive cultural practices.
The results of their research show that this assumption does not work. However counter-intuitive it may seem, the correlation between values and practices was found to be negative with regard to seven of the nine dimensions. Only Gender Egalitarianism shows a significant positive correlation. The idea, therefore, that people behave in a certain way because they hold particular values, that they have a particular view as to how things should be, does not hold water. As GLOBE’s research shows, values and practices are each linked to different phenomena. Cultural practices are related to a number of societal features such as life expectancy and national competitiveness. Cultural values, however, are related to what the society in question considers to be outstanding leadership. In short:
. . . leaders’ reported effectiveness is associated with the society’s cultural values and aspirations, but the society’s effectiveness is associated with its cultural practices.
Javidan et al. , 2006: 903 In his review of GLOBE, Hofstede makes a number of criticisms, many of which emanate from what he terms the ‘unbridgeable differences’ (Hofstede 2006: 885) between the GLOBE approach and that of Hofstede himself. The questionnaire items used come in for criticism: they are very abstract in nature, diffi- cult to understand and ‘may not have captured what the researchers supposed them to have captured’. The
‘As Is’ and ‘Should Be’ distinction is subjected to detailed criticism in the light of the distinction he makes between ‘values as the desired’ (what people actually and personally desire) and ‘values as the desirable’
(what they think they ought to desire). Hofstede (2006) believes that his values are measures of ‘the desired’
and therefore more predictive of practices. Unlike the questionnaire items in his surveys, none of the GLOBE items, he believes, measured ‘the desired’.
GLOBE’s response to this particular area of criticism is equally detailed and quite categorical:
. . . there is no empirical or theoretical justification for the assertion that GLOBE measures of values are too abstract or that the distinction between values as desirable versus values as desired is meaningful.
Javidan et al. , 2006: 903–904 Hofstede’s review also includes a detailed re-analysis of GLOBE’s dimension scores. Since the nine dimensions used by GLOBE were significantly correlated among each other, he set about simplifying the scheme using a factor analysis. His eventual conclusion was that the GLOBE dimensions could be reduced to five – ‘and these show a family likeness with the Hofstede model’ (Hofstede, 2006: 895).
In reaction to this claim, GLOBE gave a further explanation of the research procedures and retorted that Hofstede ignored state-of-the-art methods used to ensure reliability and validity. Furthermore, they pleaded for an end to what they term the ‘Hofstedeian hegemony’ ( Javidan et al. , 2006: 910). However ground-breaking his work may be, it was time to move on. The results of their project allowed for a greater understanding
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 53
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 53 12/17/14 5:32 PM12/17/14 5:32 PM
54
Chapter 2 Dimensions of culture: Hofstede and GLOBE
of cultural dimensions to be developed, using constructs and scales which were ‘more comprehensive, cross-culturally developed, theoretically sound, and empirically verifiable’ ( Javidan, 2006: 899).
GLOBE acknowledges that the results are not the only alternative to Hofstede: researchers may choose from a number of dimensions with which to pursue their cross-cultural work. They admit, however, that more research needs to be carried out with regard to the dynamics involved when cultures come into contact.
There may well be cultural dimensions which play a key role when cultures come into contact.
Questions
1. What do you consider to be the essential differences between the approach taken by Hofstede and that taken by the GLOBE project towards determining cultural dimensions?
2. Which of the criticisms often made about Hofstede’s work could be applied to that of the GLOBE pro- ject? Refer both to the above article as well as to the concepts.
3. Now that Hofstede has adopted a sixth cultural dimension (as a result of his work with Minkov – see Spotlight 2.3 ), to what extent do you think this invalidates the research which has been carried out using the original dimensions?
References used in this article
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences , 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2006) ‘What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds’, Journal of International Business Studies , 37: 882–896.
Javidan, M., House R.J., Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Sully de Luque, M. (2006) ‘Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 897–914.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011) ’The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine’, Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal , 18(1): 10–20.
Schein E.H. (1992) Organizational culture and Leadership , 2nd edition, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 54
M02_BROW5897_03_SE_C02.indd 54 12/17/14 5:32 PM12/17/14 5:32 PM
55 The clusters devised by the GLOBE project which were presented in Chapter 2 will be the starting point for this and the following chapter. These will take aspects of each of the GLOBE clusters relating to history, geography, languages, religion and work-related values and practices, and will feature certain countries within each cluster. Attention has been paid to emergent economies, particularly to Russia (the only BRICS country in Europe), and to Brazil, a ‘founding member’ of the BRICS group of emerging nations.
Chapter 3 will deal with clusters and the related cultures in European ( concept 3.1 ), American, and Australasian countries ( Concept 3.2 ). It will also consider three countries, Greece, Russia and Turkey, which have been placed in different clusters. We consider that Russia – along with the other countries placed in the East Europe cluster such as Greece – should be included in our deliberations concerning Europe as a whole. Turkey is a similar case: although the GLOBE project has positioned this country in the Middle East cluster, we believe that it should be included in this chapter, particularly on account of its application for membership of the European Union.
Learning outcomes
After studying Chapter 3 you will:
● Discover which characteristics bring together countries composing each of the clusters of the Western world.
● Gain awareness of some of the problems arising from co-operation between and within these clusters.
● Understand why Turkey has been included in this chapter along with countries in the European cluster.
● Improve your understanding of the notion ‘multiculturalism’.
Before describing the business cultures in the Western world, it is important to highlight the phenomenon ‘multiculturalism’, also called ‘ethnic diversity’, which embodied a profound change in post-industrial societies. Th ese societies, which represent a Western-centric economics concept, appeared at the beginning of the seventies when, for the fi rst time, the service sector contributed more to the wealth of a number of countries than the manufactur- ing sector. Because of its history, the United States is considered to be the best example of this development. However, multiculturalism is no longer the preserve of Western societies.
Countries such as Brazil and Mexico have also had ethnic minorities for a long time.
Chapter 3
Business cultures
in the Western world
M03_BROW5897_03_SE_C03.indd 55
M03_BROW5897_03_SE_C03.indd 55 12/17/14 5:34 PM12/17/14 5:34 PM
Chapter 3 Business cultures in the Western world
56
Preface: two approaches to the concept of multiculturalism
Political and economic factors have encouraged waves of immigration from one country to another, from one culture to another. Th e immigrants may be confronted with enormous diff erences at all levels of culture and need in some way or other to adapt. On the other hand, those cultures ‘receiving’ the immigrants may well fi nd that a certain process of accommodation is required to enable the process of integration.
Th is integration process is at the heart of the multicultural issue. Andrea Semprini (2000) argues that in the US, it is the ‘mass culture’ that has been the major factor for the integration of immigrants coming ‘from countries more distant from the European cradle’. For these groups, middle class values were involved in the process of acculturation (psycho-social adaptation of newcomers), the values which made up a strong frame of reference necessary when becoming familiar with their new home.
Joining a dominant culture, however, has entailed these groups giving up their own culture and recognising only one culture – that of the white middle class of European origin – as representative of the culture of ‘Middle America’.
How can multiculturalism be addressed?
Conceptually, there are two major schools of thought which are opposed to each other, and even contradict each other, according to whether they promote a system of values belonging to monocultural or multicultural societies. In Table 3.1 we can see how their approaches diff er with regard to their vision of the world, particularly their conception of the role of the human in a society.
Table 3.1 Monocultural and multicultural visions compared
Monocultural vision Multicultural vision
Essentialist : existence of groups and identities, their internal consistency and cultural specificity is a given, accepted as such and unlikely to change
Constructivist : identities are the result of historical evolution, especially of interactions in a dynamic process with other groups present in a society
Universalist : values, moral judgements, behavioural choices are stated as absolute and can be applied to the whole of humanity
Relativist : as long as there are social groups and minorities interacting in the same social space, it is necessary to respect diversity
Proponents of ‘ equality’ , found mainly in liberal societies, promote the equality of all citizens in terms of formal rights and legal administration
Proponents of 'differences' argue that equality is a fiction that ignores cultural inequalities and specific ethnic identity; in short, the differences that make the heterogeneous social environment
Objective : supporters emphasise the positive role of competition and excellence. They demand objective standards of quality that permit integration or exclusion when work is being evaluated.
Subjective : multiculturalists emphasise the importance of ‘recognition’ in helping minorities to develop a sense of self-esteem. They demand appropriate criteria for evaluation of performance.
M03_BROW5897_03_SE_C03.indd 56
M03_BROW5897_03_SE_C03.indd 56 12/17/14 5:34 PM12/17/14 5:34 PM