Hrm Culture - Cultural Perspectives

...

* In recent years a number of studies have been carried out among employees and managers in different countries in an effort to ‘map’ or categorise in some way the cultural variations between them. The best known are those by:

* Kluckhorn & Strodtbeck (1961)

* Hall (1981, 1990)

* Hofstede (1980 & 1991)

* Trompenaars & Hampden Turner (1993)

* Schwartz (1994)

* Lewis (1996 & 2013)

* House et al (2004)

* Swartz (2008)

* Ingelhart et al (2010)

* Basanez (2016)

* These are all extensive studies which between them cover hundreds of thousands of people – often but not always employees and managers - based in different countries. Analysis of the way they answer the researchers' questions allows us to categorise different countries according to the workplace cultures and expectations about work that predominate.

* Inevitably this process oversimplifies matters to a considerable extent, downplaying the extent of cultural variation between organisations, generations and regions within countries – as well as changes over time.

* However, because the researchers have all, without exception, found that work cultures vary much more between countries than they do within national boundaries, these studies can claim to be both valid and useful.

* In one short lecture we only have time to touch on the main findings of some of these studies. We will focus primarily on Hofstede as he has had the greatest influence over time. But we also need to note some other key contributions.

i) Hall and Hall (1981 & 1990)

* Edward Hall was an American anthropologist who (sometimes) together with his wife Mildred Reed Hall carried out detailed studies of the major cultural norms that characterise American society in comparison with those found in countries such as Germany, France and Japan.

* Their work extends well beyond the world of the workplace, dealing for example with body language and how physically close people tend to get to one another in different cultures.

* Hall is best known for his claim that national cultures can be usefully divided into two broad categories: high context cultures and low context cultures.

* Here he is primarily focused on communication, but there are also implications for the way that management decisions are made.

* The key point is that in a low context culture the message that is conveyed when one person communicates with another conveys its whole meaning. The context in which the message is communicated is irrelevant. Communication is thus very direct, frank and full.

* By contrast in a high context culture, meaning in communication is often a great deal more indirect. This is because the context in which it is being conveyed is as important, if not more important, than the message itself.

* Hall illustrates this difference and its significance by contrasting communication in Japan (a high context culture) with that in the USA (categorised as being a low context culture). In Japan messages are rarely spelled out in detail. Instead the communicator assumes that the receiver is familiar with the context and does not need to be provided with any superfluous information.

* By contrast, in the USA, there is no assumption that someone will already be familiar with the context, so more is stated / spelled out.

* This can lead to major communication difficulties. A Japanese manager may well take offence when talked to in a low context way. He / she will think that the person talking to them is being overly blunt or is treating them as if they are stupid. By contrast, a high context message being conveyed to a low context person (eg: Japanese to American) can come over as being obscure or overly polite. Why is this guy being so shifty? Why can't he just spell it out?

* Hall's view is that this divergence in context permeates organisations in all kinds of ways, making business cultures very different indeed.

* He remarks, for example on the way that senior managers in Japan share offices so that they can maintain a familiarity with everything going on around them (ie: the context). By contrast in the USA, and particularly in Germany (a very low context culture) managers tend to prefer to work in isolation from one another, communicating with one another much more fully as and when they need to.

* The major practical implication concerns decision-making. In low context countries managers tend to want to gather a great deal of information together and analyse it before making 'evidence- based' decisions. In high context cultures, by contrast, managers tend already to be well-informed and also to be appraised of how others will react when the decision is made. It can this be made without the need for a great deal of data gathered for the purpose.

ii) Hofstede (1980 & 1991)

* Despite being subjected to a great deal of criticism over the years, Gert Hofstede's work in this field remains by far the most widely quoted and cited, making it a truly seminal / landmark contribution to the study of HRM.

* He really invented the study of cross-cultural management and remains by far the most infuential scholar working in the field of International HRM. When others carry out the type of research he pioneered, the resulting studies are often labelled ‘hofstedian’.

* Hofstede's studies remain unrivalled in terms of their scale and scope, comprising the analysis of detailed questionnaires issued to many thousands of IBM employees in over fifty different countries.

* The studies have led to the publication of several huge, very detailed books, including a number of editions of "Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations" – originally published in 1980 but updated several times since.

* Hofstede defines national culture as 'the collective mental programming which distinguishes one nation from another.' He originally identified four dimensions that allow different national characteristics to be classified or