Management Scientists are Human by Hofstede - Article

Cultural relativity of Management Theories

In management theories, an often overlooked aspect is the cultural relativity of any aspect within these theories. Ever so often an over-reliance is placed on the "one best way" (especially in American Management theory). Culture in this sense should be understood as the collective mental programming which offers a differentiation between one group and another. It can apply to sexes, occupations, and organisations as well as nations. In this article culture refers to national culture.

The recognition that management (and management theorists) consists of human beings and is therefore not isolated from culture leads to the conclusion that national culture is reflected in national management theory.

As an illustration of this point, Hofstede combines McGregor's Theory X with Theory Y and researched some assumptions as to whether they overlap between American management and ASEAN management values:

1. Work is good for people.

2. Optimally utilising employee capacity is preferred.

3. Organisational objectives exist independently from people.

4. People behave as collectively uninvested individuals.

While these four assumptions would be somewhat shared between US and other Western countries, the following four would be their Southeast Asian counterparts:

1. Work is not a goal in and of itself, it is a necessity.

2. People should harmoniously find their rightful place in society (and environment).

3. Objectives have only absolute value within God. Objectives of people in authority should be followed, as those people represent God.

4. People behave as members of society/group/unit. If they do not they will face rejection.

Equating these contrasting assumptions lead to the conclusion that McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are irrelevant in the Southeast Asian Context.

Differences in National Cultures

Hofstede has effectuated a framework of five dimensions of classifying cultural values. The main four dimensions are as follows:

1. Power distance

2. Uncertainty Avoidance

3. Individualism

4. Masculinity

Power distance is the degree of inequality that is considered normal in a country. Large power distance means a high degree of inequality.

Uncertainty Avoidance can be explained as the degree of preference towards structured or unstructured situations. Structured situations are bound by (written or unwritten) rules and predictable outcomes. High uncertainty avoidance leads to people showing more nervous energy compared to easygoing people in low uncertainty avoidance countries.

Individualism and its counterpart Collectivism. This is the degree to which people like to act and be considered individuals. In collectivist countries, people have a greater sense of in-group (such as family or company) and out-group relational dynamics. This is reflected in upbringing of children. Individualist societies emphasise children to think of themselves as "I" instead of "we". Group protection and loyalty are lower in those countries.

Masculinity and Femininity, these are value-sets: Masculine values are performance, success, and competition. Feminine values are quality of life, solid personal relationships, care for the weaker and solidarity. Most societies link feminine values with women's roles, and masculine values with men's roles. The actual roles of men and women vary from society to society by definition, but sometimes the differences are larger. If the differences are large, one can call the society masculine. If the differences between men an women's roles are small, the society can be considered feminine.

National Cultures and Implicit organisational Models.

When it comes to organisation, both power distance and uncertainty avoidance play a big role, they can be placed on a quadrant matrix (X/Y). The example below is based on a comparison between organisations of four different countries along those lines.

The French organisation would solve conflicts by appealing to their superior. The Germans liked as little authority intervention as possible and rather let rules prevent conflicts. The British organisation would let situational demands determine what would happen. The Hong Kong example is interesting because no western organisation would be found in this quadrant. Later research placed predominantly African and Asian organisations in this quadrant. The manager of the firm was seen as the "grandfather" and the employees as part of the family. Potential conflicts would be resolved along those lines.

National Cultures and Organisation Theories

For theorists, the same quadrant matrix (power distance and uncertainty avoidance) can be used. Henri Fayol (fits in the Pyramid Quarant) recognises the model of an organisation as a pyramid of personal power and formal rules.

Max Weber (fits in the Machine Quadrant) theorised the ultimate form of organisation as a bureaucracy. The bureaucracy would function according to strict machine-like rules, limiting the personal power of people of authority.

Frederick Winslow Taylor was an American engineer. His theory of organisation focused on skill, expertise and productivity to achieve efficiency in outcome. Every boss should be a specialist in something. This could lead to an employee having up to 8 bosses depending on his tasks. Situation would dictate leadership and rules. Because Taylor does not focus on authority and rules as much, we can recognise the Market Quadrant in his theory.

Sun Yat-Sen (fits in the Family Quadrant) was concerned with organisation of government. He imported the ideas of the Trias Politica, and added the existing Chinese Examination Branch and Control Branch into his model of organisation. However, the first three branches would be placed under the authority of the president. The fourth would provide access to the civil service. fifth one should audit the government. The authority of the president and his legislative powers were only paralleled by the control and examination branches.

Research shows that the cultures that produce these theories are likely to prefer them as well. This leads again to the same models. In British and American scholarship market behaviour is emphasised as leading. German and French organisation theories let markets play a relatively small part. The principle of control however differs, German theories stress rules, and French ones stress the importance of personal power. The Family Quandrant is linked to scholarship where clan behaviour is prevalent. Chinese Communist Party would also show this behaviour, albeit mixed with top-down indoctrination.

The influence of Researchers' National Cultures on Research Outcomes

The aforementioned examples are based on a large study within IBM's worldwide branches with researchers coming from six different (Western) countries. A nationally diverse research team however does not ensure the lack of cultural bias. The interpersonal dynamics within the team and the designated people of authority also determine the outcome. People from Large Power Distance cultures might undermine their own contribution to the research outcome by deferring to the team leader.

A study to test the effect of Western bias (the Chinese Value Survey) was done on a worldwide population. And the three dimensions Power Distance, Masculinity and Individualism corresponded with the earlier study. Uncertainty Avoidance however was replaced in this study by Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation. East Asian countries scored significantly higher on Long-Term Orientation, especially the countries that had enjoyed a high economic growth period in their recent history. The fact that the Chinese Value Survey incorporated Long-Term Orientation and the IBM study identified Uncertainty Avoidance shows the cultural character of both research teams.

Western researchers were concerned with certainty, a concept related to Truth (Absolute Truth is a Western philosophical concept not apparent in Eastern philosophies). The Eastern researchers concerned themselves with questions of Virtue. The quest for absolute truths might be explained through the dominant monotheistic religions of the West (Islam Judaism, Christianity). The dominant Eastern religions and philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism) place much more emphasis on personal improvement over time through virtuous acts such as attitude and ritual. This lead both studies to include different survey questions, relating to truth and virtue respectively.

Different ways of thinking are also seen in the different scripts. Western (analytical) thinking is underlined by the use of an alphabet of about 30 letters, breaking down each syllable into a sign. Eastern thinking is more synthetic, such as the Chinese script that needs 5000 characters, each character its own syllable.

The Western search for truth lead to the discovery of Newton's natural laws. But by the second half of the twentieth century, this search for truth had ceased to be an asset. Science needs analytical thinking, but organisation needs synthesis. The comparative advantage of synthetic thinking and acting helped East Asian cultures to become economically highly successful for several decades.

Conclusion

Every culture has its own truths and needs, and this accounts for organisations, managers and researchers.