international dimensions of organizational behavior ch 2

Chapter 2

How Cultural Differences Affect Organizations

Deep cultural undercurrents structure life in subtle but highly consistent ways that are not consciously formulated. Like the

invisible jet streams in the skies that determine the course of a storm, these currents shape our lives; yet their influence is only

beginning to be identified.

—Edward T. Hall (7:12)

People eat different foods, celebrate different holidays, and dress differ-ently in countries around the world. But do those differences affect theways in which people work together? Do people organize, manage, andwork differently from culture to culture?

WORK BEHAVIOR VARIES ACROSS CULTURESIn what ways does the behavior of people in organizations vary acrosscultures? Researchers have observed systematic and culturally based dif-ferences in managers’ values, attitudes, and behaviors.

Each of us has a set of attitudes and beliefs—filters through which wesee management situations. Figure 2-1 shows how managers’ beliefs, atti-tudes, and values affect behavior. To a certain extent, beliefs, attitudes, andvalues cause both vicious and benevolent cycles of behavior. DouglasMcGregor, an early American management theorist, gave us prototypicalexamples of this pattern in his classic “Theory X” and “Theory Y” mana-gerial styles (17). According to McGregor, Theory X managers do nottrust their subordinates and believe that employees will not do agood job unless closely supervised. These managers establish tight controlsystems—such as time clocks and frequent employee observation—toreassure themselves that employees are working. The employees, realizingthat management does not trust them, start behaving irresponsibly—they arrive on time only when the time clock is working and only workwhen the manager is watching. The manager, observing this behavior,

44

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 44

becomes more distrustful of the employees and installs even tighter controlsystems. According to McGregor, the manager’s belief that employeescannot be trusted leads to the employees’ irresponsible behavior, which inturn reinforces the manager’s belief that employees cannot be trusted—avicious cycle and a counterproductive, yet self-fulfilling, prophecy.

McGregor’s Theory Y describes a more benevolent cycle. Managerswho trust their employees give them overall goals and tasks withoutinstituting tight control systems or close supervision. The employees,believing that management trusts them, do their best work whether ornot their manager is watching them. The manager, seeing that theemployees are present and working, becomes more convinced that theycan be trusted. Managers’ attitudes influence their own behavior, whichin turn influences their employees’ attitudes and behavior, which thenreinforce the managers’ original attitudes and behavior.

Managers communicate respect for and trust in their employeesin different ways, depending on their cultural background. Managersfrom more specific cultures, for example, tend to focus only on behav-ior that takes place at work, whereas managers from more diffuse cul-tures focus on a wider range of behavior, including behavior takingplace in employees’ private and professional lives. As a part of a majorcross-cultural management study, Fons Trompenaars and CharlesHampden-Turner (21), a world-renowned Dutch and British management

How Cultural Differences Affect Organizations 45

Reinforces Manager’s Beliefs

Manager’s Values, Beliefs, and Attributes Manager’s Behavior Employees’/Subordinates’

Behavior

Reinforces Manager’s Beliefs

Pattern Within a Culture:

Example:

Manager’s Belief:Employees can't be trusted

Manager’s Behavior: Install tight control systems

Employees’ Behavior:Act as “irresponsible kids,” seeing

what they can get away with

FIGURE 2-1 Influence of Managers’ Attitudes on Employees’Behavior: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Source: Based on McGregor (17); adapted by Adler, 2007.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 45

research and consulting team, asked managers from around the worldif their companies should provide employees with housing. Whereasmost managers from such diffuse cultures as the former Yugoslavia(89%), Hungary (83%), China (82%), and Russia (78%) believe thatthe company should provide housing, managers from more specificcultures reject the idea as interfering with employees’ private lives (21:86).Less than 20 percent of managers from such specific cultures asAustralia, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States believe that providing housingis a good idea (21:86). Managers from diffuse cultures communicate theirrespect by showing concern for an employee’s whole life. By contrast,managers from specific cultures demonstrate their respect by not

46 The Impact of Culture on Organizations

MANAGEMENTTrusting or Naive

Canadian Employees and Filipino Management1

A Canadian bank employee described his Filipino boss’s low-trust approach tomanagement:

While working at the Royal Bank, I had a most unbearable and suspiciousmanager who had authority over all administrative employees, including me. Theproblem was that he seemed to totally distrust his subordinates. He constantlylooked over our shoulders, checking our work, attitudes, and punctuality.Although most of his employees resented this treatment, they recognized that hewas an extremely conscientious supervisor who honestly believed in what he called“old-style” management. He really thought that employees are lazy by nature. Hetherefore believed that he must pressure them into working. As the manager, hefelt justified in treating his employees severely.

I found his attitude condescending and counterproductive. As a group, theemployees thought of themselves as basically trustworthy. However, we decidedthat since our boss showed no respect for us, we would give him the same treat-ment in return. This resulted in a work environment filled with mistrust and hos-tility. The atmosphere affected everyone’s work: employees became less and lesswilling to work, and the manager increasingly believed that his employees werelazy and that he needed to be severe with them. Luckily, the situation caught theeye of a senior manager, who resolved it after lengthy discussions. Only then didit become clear that we were not seeing the situation in the same way. From themanager’s perspective, he was simply showing his caring and involvement with hissubordinates. As he explained, Filipino employees who were not treated like thismight have felt neglected and unimportant. Unfortunately, we were not Filipinosand, as Canadians, we did not respond as many Filipinos might have responded.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 46

intruding in employees’ private lives. It is easy to see how misunderstand-ing and mistrust can grow between managers from one culture andemployees from another culture.

WORLDWIDE DIFFERENCES IN MANAGERIAL STYLEAndré Laurent (15), a highly acclaimed professor at INSEAD, (a leadinginternational management school located in France), studied the philoso-phies and behaviors of managers in nine Western European countries,the United States, and three Asian countries (Indonesia, Japan, andChina). Laurent asked managers from each country to describe theirapproaches to more than 60 common work situations. He found dis-tinctly different patterns for managers in each of the countries.

Task and Relationship In response to the statement,“The main reasonfor a hierarchical structure is so that everybody knows who has author-ity over whom,” for example, managers from some countries stronglyagreed, whereas managers from other countries strongly disagreed. Asshown in Table 2-1, most U.S. managers disagree with the statement; theybelieve that the main reason for a hierarchical structure is to organizetasks and facilitate problem solving around those tasks. Coming from anextremely task-oriented culture, many Americans believe that a flatorganization with few hierarchical levels—in which most employeeswork as colleagues rather than bosses and subordinates—can functioneffectively. They believe that such minimal hierarchy is possible if tasksand roles are clearly defined and the organization is not too large.

By contrast, many managers from more relationship-oriented cul-tures, such as most Asians, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, andSouthern Europeans, strongly agree with Laurent’s statement. Eighty-three percent of Indonesian managers reported that the main reason fora hierarchical structure was to have everyone know who has authorityover whom. They did not believe that even a small organization couldexist, let alone succeed, without a formal hierarchy.


TABLE 2-1 “The Main Reason for a Hierarchical Structure Is So ThatEverybody Knows Who Has Authority Over Whom.”

More Task Oriented More Relationship OrientedAgreement Rate Across Countries

United Nether- GreatStates Germany Sweden lands Britain Spain Italy France Japan China Indonesia17% 26% 30% 31% 34% 34% 42% 43% 50% 70% 83%

Source: Laurent (15), updated and expanded, 2007.2

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM 7

Perhaps these different beliefs explain some problems that can occurwhen Americans work, for example, with Indonesians. Americans typi-cally approach a project by outlining the overall goal, designating eachof the major steps, and then addressing staffing needs. Their approachgoes from task to people. Indonesians, on the other hand, typically wantto first know who will manage the project and who will work on it.Once they know who the leader will be and the hierarchy of peopleinvolved, they can assess the project’s feasibility. The Indonesians’approach goes from people to task. Both cultures need to understandthe project’s goals and staffing arrangements, but the importance ofeach is reversed. An American would rarely discuss candidates for proj-ect director before at least broadly defining the project, whereasIndonesians would rarely discuss project feasibility before knowingwho would be leading the project.

Similarly, in response to the statement, “In order to have efficientwork relationships it is often necessary to bypass the hierarchical line,”Laurent found large and consistent differences across cultures. As shownin Table 2-2, Swedish managers see the least problem with bypassing.They are task oriented and value getting the job done; to Swedes, solvingproblems means going directly to the person most likely to have theneeded information and expertise, and not necessarily to their boss.Most Swedish managers believe that a perfect hierarchy—in which theirboss would know everything—is impossible; they therefore view bypass-ing as a natural, logical, and appropriate way for employees to work effi-ciently in today’s complex and rapidly changing organizations.

By contrast, most Italians, being more relationship oriented than theSwedes, consider bypassing the boss as an act of insubordination. MostItalian managers believe that frequent bypassing indicates a poorlydesigned organization. Italians therefore respond to bypassing by repri-manding the employee or redesigning the hierarchical reporting structure.Imagine the frustration and potential for failure when Swedes form jointventures and strategic alliances with Italians. When Swedish employees


TABLE 2-2 “In Order to Have Efficient Work Relationships, It Is OftenNecessary to Bypass the Hierarchical Line.”

More Task Oriented More Relationship OrientedDisagreement Rate Across Countries

United Great Nether-Sweden States Britain France lands Germany Indonesia Italy China Spain26% 32% 35% 43% 44% 45% 51% 56% 59% 74%

Source: Laurent (15), updated and expanded, 2007.2

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 48

begin working in a typical Italian organization, they will attempt toaccomplish their work goals responsibly by continually bypassing hier-archical lines and going directly to the people in the organizationwhom they believe have the needed information and expertise. Becausethe Swedes do not first consult their new Italian boss, the Italian willassume that the Swedes are insubordinate and hence a threat to boththe alliance and the project. In the reverse situation, the Swedish bosswill rapidly become frustrated with her Italian subordinates’ constantcommunication and seemingly endless requests for information andpermission. Before long, the Swedish boss will assume that Italianemployees lack initiative and are neither willing to use their personaljudgment nor to take risks. Why else, asks the Swedish manager, wouldthe Italians always consult me, the boss, before acting on matters forwhich the boss need not be consulted? Is either side right? No, they arejust different.

Managers: Experts or Problem Solvers? Laurent found little agreementacross national borders on the nature of the managerial role. As shownin Figure 2-2, more than four times as many Indonesian and Japanesemanagers as U.S. managers agreed with the statement, “It is importantfor managers to have at hand precise answers to most questions their


FIGURE 2-2 The Manager’s Role Varies Across Cultures

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

17 1823

27

3844 46

53

6673

77 78

PercentageAgreeing

“It is important for managers to have at hand precise answersto most questions their subordinates may raise about their work.”

SwedenNetherlands

United States

DenmarkGreat Britain

Switzerland

BelgiumGermany

FranceItaly Indonesia

SpainJapan

Source: Laurent, (15), updated and expanded, 2007.2

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 49

subordinates may raise about their work.” Most U.S. managers believethat the role of the manager is to be a problem solver: managers shouldhelp their employees discover ways to solve problems, rather than sim-ply answering their questions directly. Furthermore, U.S. managersbelieve that merely providing answers discourages subordinates’ initia-tive and creativity and ultimately diminishes their productivity. By con-trast, the French generally see the manager as an expert. Most Frenchmanagers believe that they should give precise answers to subordinates’questions in order to maintain their credibility as experts and as man-agers. They believe that their subordinates’ sense of security depends onreceiving precise answers. Most French believe that people should nothold managerial positions unless they can give precise answers to mostwork-related questions. (See page 83, the Iranian’s view, for anotherexample of the expert perspective.)

Is a manager primarily an expert or a problem solver? Again, thequestion has no single right answer because organizations from differ-ent cultures maintain different beliefs. Problems, however, arise whenmanagers from one culture interact with managers and employees fromother cultures. When an American manager tells French employees, “Idon’t know the answer, but maybe if you talk to Simon in marketing hewill know,” the French employees do not assume that they have receivedappropriate problem-solving help but rather assume that theirAmerican boss is incompetent. Similarly misunderstanding the situation,American employees who receive specific answers from their Frenchboss may consider the boss egotistical rather than competent: “Whydidn’t the French boss tell us that Simon in marketing is the expert andhas the most up-to-date answer?”

Laurent concludes that the national origin of Asian, European, andNorth American managers significantly affects their views on howeffective managers should manage (15:77). Overall, the extent to whichmanagers see organizations as primarily political, authoritarian, role-formalizing, or hierarchical-relationship systems varies according totheir country of origin (15).

DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENCEDifferences in work-related attitudes exist across a wide range of cul-tures. Geert Hofstede, an eminent Dutch management researcher,corroborated and integrated the results of Laurent’s and others’research. In a 40-country study (11), which was later expanded to morethan 60 countries worldwide (5;9;10;12;13), 160,000 managers and employ-ees working for a U.S. multinational corporation were surveyed twice.Hofstede, like Laurent, found highly significant differences in thebehavior and attitudes of employees and managers from each country


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 50

even though they worked within the same multinational corporation—differences that did not change over time. Hofstede found that nationalculture explained more of the differences in work-related values andattitudes than did position within the organization, profession, age, orgender. In summarizing the most important differences, Hofstede ini-tially found that managers and employees varied on four primarydimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertaintyavoidance, and career success/quality of life.3 Later, Hofstede and hiscolleagues identified a fifth dimension, Confucian dynamism (5;13).

Individualism and Collectivism Individualism exists when people definethemselves primarily as separate individuals and make their maincommitments to themselves. Individualism implies loosely knit socialnetworks in which people focus primarily on taking care of themselvesand their immediate families. Collectivism is characterized by tightsocial networks in which people strongly distinguish between their owngroups (in-groups, such as relatives, clans, and organizations) and othergroups. Collectivists hold common goals and objectives, not individualgoals that focus primarily on self-interest. People in collective culturesexpect members of their particular in-groups to look after them, pro-tect them, and give them security in exchange for their loyalty to thegroup. Two-thirds of all surveyed Arab executives, for example, thoughtemployee loyalty was more important than efficiency (18). This dimen-sion reflects values similar to those of the individual/group values orien-tation discussed in Chapter 1 (6).

Collectivism characterizes such cultures as the Japanese, in whichpeople believe that the will of the group should determine members’beliefs and behavior. This belief is reflected in the Japanese saying, “Thenail that sticks out will be pounded down.” By contrast, free will andself-determination characterize individualistic cultures such as that of theUnited States, where individuals believe that each person should deter-mine his or her own beliefs and behavior. In each nation, cultural beliefsbecome self-fulfilling. People from individualistic cultures also oftenbelieve that certain universal values should be shared by all. People fromcollectivist cultures, on the other hand, accept that different groups holddifferent values. Being individualistic, most North Americans believethat democracy—especially North American–style democracy—ideallyshould be shared by all countries worldwide. Many people from collec-tivist cultures find such a view both hard to understand and unacceptable.

Collectivist cultures control their members more through externalsocietal pressure (shame), whereas individualistic cultures controltheir members more through internal pressure (guilt). Members ofcollectivist cultures place more importance on fitting in harmoniously


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 51

and saving face. Members of individualistic cultures place more empha-sis on individual self-respect. In many ways the two orientations tradeoff individual freedom against collective protection: Do I do what is bestfor me or what is best for the group? Do I take care only of myself ordoes the group take care of me? Do I expect the boss to hire me becauseI have the right education and work experience (individual) or because Icome from the right family or social class (group)? Do I expect to bepromoted on the basis of my performance in the company or on thebasis of my seniority with the company? In times of economic reces-sion, do I expect that the least productive workers will be laid off or thatevery employee will take a pay cut? Figure 2-3 shows the ranking of


FIGURE 2-3 Position of 60 Countries on Power Distance and Individualism/Collectivism

Note: See Table 2-3 for list of abbreviations.

Source: Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, 2001), 217. Copyright © Geert Hofstede.

COS PAKCOL

PERSAL WAF

VEN

GUA

PAN

MAL

PHI

ECA

IDO

YUGMEX

GREBRATUR

IRA

SAF

ISRAUT

FIN

DEN

NZL CANNET

GERIRE SWI

NOR

SWEITA

USAGBR

AUL

BEL

FRA

SPA

JPNIND

ARA

ARG

JAMURU

THACHL

EAFHOK

SINTAI

KOR

POR

Small Power Distance/ Collectivistic Large Power Distance/Collectivistic

Small Power Distance/ Individualistic Large Power Distance/Individualistic

POWER DISTANCE INDEX

Collectivist

INDIVIDUALISM INDEX

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 52

countries on the individualism/collectivism dimension, and Table 2-3shows the abbreviations used in Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5.

The Dutch-British management research team of Fons Trompenaarsand Charles Hampden-Turner also found that managers worldwidevary markedly in their orientation toward individualism and collectivism(21). Among other questions, they asked managers which of the followingtwo options would be most likely to improve the quality of life (21:47):

1. Giving individuals the maximum opportunity to develop them-selves; or

2. Having individuals continuously taking care of their fellow humanbeings

The vast majority of American (79%), Canadian (79%), and Norwegianmanagers (76%), for example, selected the first option stressing individ-ual freedom, whereas most managers in Nepal (69%), Kuwait (61%) andEgypt (59%) selected the second option stressing collective responsi-bility (21:48).

Which is better, individualism or collectivism? The answer is neitherand both. In complex societies and organizations, however, forming asynthesis between opposites has become increasingly necessary (8).Individualism and collectivism complement each other, with their rela-tionship being “essentially circular with two starting points” (21:55).Individualistic and collectivist cultures

go through . . . [the same] cycles, but starting at different points [witheach reversing what the other considers to be ends and means]. Theindividualistic culture sees the individual as “the end” and improvements


TABLE 2-3 Country Abbreviations as Used in Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5

ARA Arab countries FRA France JPN Japan SAL El SalvadorARG Argentina GBR Great Britain KOR Korea (S.) SIN SingaporeAUL Australia GER Germany (W.) MAL Malaysia SPA SpainAUT Austria GRE Greece MEX Mexico SWE SwedenBEL Belgium GUA Guatemala NET Netherlands SWI SwitzerlandBRA Brazil HOK Hong Kong NOR Norway TAI TaiwanCAN Canada IDO Indonesia NZL New Zealand THA ThailandCHL Chile IND India PAK Pakistan TUR TurkeyCOL Columbia IRA Iran PAN Panama URU UruguayCOS Costa Rica IRE Ireland PER Peru USA United StatesDEN Denmark ISR Israel PHI Philippines VEN VenezuelaEAF East Africa ITA Italy POR Portugal WAF West AfricaECA Ecuador JAM Jamaica SAF South Africa YUG YugoslaviaFIN Finland

Source: Based on Hofstede (10:70); adapted by Adler and Gundersen, 2007.4

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 53


to collective arrangements as the means to achieve it. The collectivist cul-ture sees the group as its end and improvements to individual capacitiesas a means to that end (21:55).

Power Distance The second cultural dimension, power distance,reflects the extent to which less powerful members of organizationsaccept an unequal distribution of power. How willing are employees toaccept that their boss has more power than they have? Is the boss rightbecause he or she is the boss (high power distance) or only when he orshe knows the correct answer (low power distance)? Do employees dotheir work in a particular way because the boss wants it that way (highpower distance) or because they personally believe that it is the best wayto do it (low power distance)?

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

The Pacific Area Travel Association5

A global market research firm in Tokyo conducted a survey of travel marketpotential for the Pacific Area Travel Association (PATA), an organization ofnational tourist offices from various Pacific Rim nations. Although they conductedthe survey through a standard questionnaire, each nation was invited to submit afew of its own open-ended questions.

All countries responded promptly. Of the ten countries surveyed, the U.S.Department of Commerce was the first to send in its questions. The same individ-ual’s name was always attached to each letter from the United States.

Shortly after completing the PATA survey, the company received a contract fora similar study for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Due tothe similar content, the researchers attempted to conduct the ASEAN study in analmost identical fashion to the PATA survey. They requested open-ended questionsfrom the national tourism offices of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,Singapore, and Thailand. Because they had completed the collection of questionsin a little over a month for PATA, the company assumed six weeks would be morethan sufficient for the ASEAN nations. They were wrong! The ASEAN nationsrequired considerably more time than did the PATA countries. The market researchfirm had to exchange many letters and faxes with the Philippines and Tokyo beforeit received their final responses. Moreover, every communication from thePhilippines bore a different individual’s name on it as its sender.

In thinking over these responses, the researchers concluded that the contrastbetween the Americans’ and the Filipinos’ responses to the same task stemmedfrom the relative emphasis on the individual versus the group. Whereas the U.S.office gave sole responsibility to an individual, the more group-oriented Filipinosdelegated the task to a whole department. Since the Philippines office involvedeveryone in the task, it naturally took longer.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 54


In high power-distance countries, such as India, the Philippines,Poland, and Venezuela, managers and employees consider bypassing tobe insubordination; whereas in low power-distance countries, such asIsrael and Denmark, employees expect, and are expected, to bypasstheir bosses frequently in order to get their work done (19). When nego-tiating in high power-distance countries, companies find it important tosend representatives with titles equivalent to or higher than those oftheir counterparts from the other organization. Titles, status, and formal-ity command less importance in low power-distance countries. Asshown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, the United States ranks relatively low onpower distance.

Uncertainty Avoidance The third cultural dimension, uncertainty avoid-ance, reflects the extent to which people in a society feel threatened byambiguity and therefore try to avoid ambiguous situations by providinggreater certainty and predictability. Organizations reduce uncertaintyby establishing more formal rules, rejecting deviant ideas and behavior,accepting the possibility of identifying absolute truths and attainingunquestionable expertise, and providing their employees with greatercareer stability. Offering lifetime employment, for example, is more com-mon in high uncertainty-avoidance countries such as Greece, Japan,and Portugal; whereas high job mobility occurs more commonly in

POWER DISTANCE

An American Executive in London6

An American executive moved to London to manage his company’s British head-quarters. Although the initial few weeks passed relatively uneventfully, it botheredthe executive that visitors were never sent directly to his office. A visitor first hadto speak with the receptionist, then the secretary, and then the office manager.Finally the office manager would escort the visitor to see the American executive.The American became annoyed with this practice, which he considered a totalwaste of time. When he finally spoke with his British employees and urged themto be less formal and to send visitors directly to him, they were chagrined.

After a number of delicate conversations, the American executive began tounderstand the greater emphasis on formality and hierarchy in England. He slowlylearned to ignore his impatience when the British greeted guests using their moreformal, multistep approach. Visitors to the British headquarters continued to seethe receptionist, secretary, and office manager before being sent to meet theAmerican.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 55


low uncertainty-avoidance countries such as Denmark and Singapore.The United States, with its very high job mobility, ranks relatively low onuncertainty avoidance.

As shown in Figure 2-4, common images of organizations varymarkedly depending on a country’s orientation in terms of powerdistance and uncertainty avoidance. People in countries such asDenmark that rank low on both dimensions see organizations as

FIGURE 2-4 Position of 60 Countries on Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance


Source: Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 2001), 152. Copyright © Geert Hofstede. Adapted by Adler, 2007.

SIN

IND

EAF

JAM

DEN

SWE

IRE

USACAN SAF

NETNZL

AUT

GER

FINSWI

ISR

THA ECAIRAPAK TAI

BRA

COL

PERKOR

SALBEL

URU

JPN

POR

GRE

FRA

ITA

COS ARG SPA

VEN

MEXTURCHLYUG

PAN

GUA

ARA

WAF

IDO

PHI

MAL

HOK

GBR

NOR

AUL

”Village Market”Small Power Distance/Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

”Traditional Family”Large Power Distance/Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEXWeak

”Well-Oiled Machine”Small Power Distance/ Strong Uncertainty Avoidance

”Pyramid of People”Large Power Distance/Strong Uncertainty Avoidance

Small

Strong

POWER DISTANCE INDEXLarge

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 05:01 PM Page 56


resembling village markets: the organizations have little hierarchy,everyone talks with everyone else, and risk taking is both expected andencouraged.

Employees in high power-distance/low uncertainty-avoidance coun-tries, such as Singapore and the Philippines, tend to view their organi-zations as traditional families. As the traditional head of the family, thefather protects family members physically and economically. In exchange,the family expects loyalty from its members. Reflecting the same dynam-ics, bosses in Singapore expect to take care of their employees inexchange for the employees’ loyalty.

Employees in countries such as the former Yugoslavia and Mexico,which are high on both dimensions, tend to view their organizations aspyramids of people rather than traditional families. Everyone in theorganization knows who reports to whom, and formal lines of commu-nication run vertically, never horizontally, up and down the organiza-tion. In pyramid organizations, management reduces uncertainty byemphasizing who has authority over whom. Pyramid organizationsresemble a fire department: not only is it clear who is chief, but the firechief ’s word becomes law (high power distance). The department clear-ly defines all procedures and tolerates little or no questioning ordeviance—little or no ambiguity. When the alarm rings, firefighters donot stop to discuss who will drive the pumper or who will ride on thehook and ladder, because management has previously clearly definedeach role and task.

In high uncertainty-avoidance/low power-distance countries such asIsrael and Austria, organizations tend to resemble well-oiled machines:they operate highly predictably without needing a strong hierarchy.Most North American post offices provide excellent examples of thistype of organization: they reduce uncertainty by clearly defining rolesand procedures.

Career Success and Quality of Life The fourth cultural dimensioncontrasts societies focused more narrowly on career success with thosemore broadly emphasizing quality of life.7 Career-success societiesemphasize assertiveness and the acquisition of money and things(materialism), while not showing particular concern for people. Bycontrast, quality-of-life societies emphasize relationships among people,concern for others, and the overall quality of life.

Societies that stress career success usually define women’s and men’s rolesmore rigidly and narrowly than do quality-of-life societies. For example,women may drive trucks or practice law and men may become pre-school teachers, nurses, or house husbands more easily in societies empha-sizing quality of life than in those stressing traditional career success.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 57

As shown in Figure 2-5, the Scandinavian countries strongly emphasizequality of life, the United States emphasizes career success more than qual-ity of life, and Japan and Austria strongly emphasize career success.Japanese and Austrians generally expect women to stay home and to carefor children without following a career outside the home. The UnitedStates encourages women to work, but offers them only a limited amountof support for company-sponsored maternity leaves and child care. TheSwedes expect women to work outside the home; Sweden offers parentsthe option of paternity or maternity leave to take care of newborn childrenand the state provides day-mothers to care for older children.


FIGURE 2-5 Position of 40 Countries on Uncertainty Avoidance and Career Success/Quality of Life


Source: Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, 2001), 334. Copyright © Geert Hofstede. Adapted by Adler, 2007.

SIN

JAM

HOK

MAL

IND

GBR

PHI

SWI

GER

AUT

VEN

MEX

CAN

WAF

IRA

PAKARA

ARG

BEL

GRE

JPN

ECAITA

COL

THA

URU

SAL

PERSPA

ISRTUR

PAN

BRA

CHLKOR FRA

COS

FIN

NETNOR

SWE

DEN

IDO

EAF

TAI

POR

YUG

GUA

NZLAUL

USASAF

IRE

Weak Uncertainty Avoidance/Quality of Life

Weak Uncertainty Avoidance/ Career Success

WeakUNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEX

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance/Quality of Life

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance/ Career SuccessStrong

Quality of Life CAREER SUCCESS/QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX

Career Success

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 58


The career-success/quality-of-life dimension strongly affects work-place motivation. Japanese quality circles, for example, primarily strive toachieve maximum quality (career success/high uncertainty avoidance);whereas the innovative Swedish work groups—originally used at Volvo—attempt to enhance job satisfaction and flexibility (high quality oflife/low uncertainty avoidance). Because societies emphasizing quality oflife also often create high-tax environments, extra income frequently failsto strongly motivate employees (in Sweden, for example). Conversely,societies emphasizing career success often develop into lower-tax envi-ronments in which extra income and other visible signs of career successeffectively reward achievement (in the United States, for example).

Confucian Dynamism After identifying the first four dimensions,Hofstede and his Hong Kong-based colleague, the eminent cross-culturalpsychologist Michael Bond, conducted the first global managementsurvey ever developed with Chinese managers and employees. Based onthis survey, Hofstede and Bond identified a fifth dimension, Confucian

CAREER SUCCESS AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Swedish Managers’ Supposedly Inadequate Business Commitment8

Swedish policy allows parents to take paternity or maternity leave at their discre-tion. When Sweden first initiated the policy, the managing director of the SwedishPostal Service created an uproar by announcing his intention to take paternityleave for a number of months to stay home with his newborn child. At a press con-ference, he explained that executives do not differ from other employees: everyonewants and needs to balance work with family life. He also explained that hebelieved that any organization that cannot function for a period of time without itsmanaging director had no raison d’être.

Swedish expatriate managers often do not have the opportunity to explaintheir desire for balancing their professional and private life to their colleagues fromother countries. Swedes frequently surprise their international clients when theyend the work week on Friday at 5 p.m. or announce their intention to fly home atthe end of the day because they want to spend more time with their families.Swedish businesspeople describe many of their international colleagues, especiallyAmericans, as willing to work all evening and all weekend just to finish an impor-tant project. Americans, on the other hand, frequently resent the Swedes’ behav-ior, judging it to reflect an inadequate commitment to work. In actuality, theSwedes’ choices simply demonstrate their strong commitment to quality of life,whereas the Americans and other similar foreigners behave according to theirequally strong commitment to the particular project (career-success orientation).

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 59

dynamism, which measures employees’ devotion to the work ethic andtheir respect for tradition (5;13). Many observers attribute the rapid eco-nomic growth in the 1990s of Asia’s “Four Tigers”—Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—to their extremely strong workethic and commitment to traditional Confucian values (13;10).

Rules and Relationships Building on the work of Laurent andHofstede, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (21) conducted a majorsurvey of more than 15,000 managers in 40 countries. In addition toresults that corroborate those of their colleagues, they went beyond theprior work to document additional dimensions and to highlight someof the ethical issues posed by managers misinterpreting conflicting cul-tural signals.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (21:34), for example, asked man-agers from around the world to consider what they would do in the fol-lowing situation:

You are riding in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestri-an. You know he was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area ofthe city where the maximum allowed speed is 20 miles per hour.There are no witnesses. His lawyer says that if you testify under oaththat he was only driving 20 miles per hour it may save him fromserious consequences. What right has your friend to expect you toprotect him?a. My friend has a definite right as a friend to expect me to testify to

the lower figure.b. He has some right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower

figure.c. He has no right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower

figure.What do you think you would do in view of the obligations of a swornwitness and the obligation to your friend?1. Testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.2. Not testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.

In response to this situation, managers expressed a wide range ofopinions. More than 90 percent of managers in Canada (96%), theUnited States (95%), Switzerland (94%), Australia (93%), Sweden(93%), Norway (93%), and Western Germany (91%) said that society’srules were made for everyone and that, therefore, their friend had noright to expect them to testify falsely (21:35). They consequently would nottestify that their friend was driving at 20 miles per hour when thetruth was that he was driving faster (21:35). By contrast, fewer than half themanagers in South Korea (26%),Venezuela (34%), Russia (42%), Indonesia


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 60

(47%), and China (48%) would refuse to support their friend and wouldtherefore testify for him (21:35).

Why do such extreme differences characterize the managers’responses? The underlying dimension separating those who would andwould not testify falsely is whether the society believes more in univer-salism or particularism. Managers who refuse to testify adhere to moreuniversalistic values. Universalistic societies, such as Canada and theUnited States, believe that laws apply to everyone and that they there-fore must be upheld by everyone at all times. The general (or universal-istic) principle of what is legal, or illegal, takes precedence over the par-ticular details of who is involved in the specific situation. By contrast, inparticularist societies, such as South Korea and Venezuela, the nature ofthe relationship determines how someone will act in a particular situa-tion. To a person from a particularist culture, it makes a difference ifsomeone is a best friend or family member. For a person from a uni-versalistic culture, it makes no difference what my relationship is to aparticular person; rules are seen as applying equally to everyone. Askyourself what you would do in the situation. Then ask yourself, if it hadbeen your mother or daughter driving the car, would you be more orless likely to testify than you would be for a friend? How much differ-ence does relationship make for you? When is loyalty more importantthan truth? When is truth more important than loyalty?

Although firms tend to become more universalistic as they operatemore globally, clashes between universalistic and particularistic culturesremain legendary. Universalistic cultures, for example, rely on extensiveand specific contracts to document the “rules” of doing business together,whereas particularistic cultures use much more loosely written agree-ments and rely on the strength of their personal relationships to maintainthe commitment. Particularists view detailed contracts, and especiallypenalty clauses, as a sign that they are not trusted and that therefore norelationship exists. They consequently feel little need to adhere to the con-tract. Interestingly, as many Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin cultures haveshown, personal relationships can, at times, be more durable than con-tracts, as well as more flexible.

Clearly, joint ventures, strategic alliances, and overall business nego-tiations between universalists and particularists raise ethical questions,from both cultures’ perspectives:

Businesspeople from both societies . . . tend to think [of] each other[as] corrupt. A universalist will say of particularists, “they cannot betrusted because they will always help their friends”; a particularist,conversely, will say of universalists, “you cannot trust them: they wouldnot even help a friend” (21:32).


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 61

Coming from a particularistic culture, a team of Brazilian negotia-tors explained to us that they only tell the truth once they have gottento know the other party; that is, once they have developed a personalrelationship. They described American and Canadian negotiators, whooften accused Brazilians of lying, as naïve for not understanding hownegotiating really works. The Americans, for whom truth is anabsolute—a “universal” that is unrelated to the particular negotiationor the particular people involved—accused Brazilians of acting deceit-fully. Americans tell the same “truth” to everyone, without regard forthe nature or depth of the relationship. Brazilians tailor their com-ments, their “truth,” to the particular individuals involved. Both sidesconsider truth and relationship to be important, however the relativeemphasis on truth telling versus loyalty causes marked differences inbehavior.

ARE ORGANIZATIONS BECOMING MORE SIMILAR?Are organizations becoming more similar worldwide or are they main-taining their cultural dissimilarities? Is the world gradually creating oneway to conduct business or is the world maintaining a set of distinctmarkets defined by equally distinct national boundaries, each with itsown culturally distinct approach to business?

The question of convergence versus divergence has puzzled globalmanagers for years. If people around the world are becoming more sim-ilar, then understanding cross-cultural differences should become lessimportant. If people are remaining dissimilar, then understandingcross-cultural differences in organizations will become increasinglyimportant.

To clarify this dilemma, John Child (4), a leading British managementscholar, compared research on organizations across cultures. Reviewinga myriad of cross-cultural studies, he found one group of highly rep-utable management scholars repeatedly concluding that the world isbecoming more similar and another equally reputable group of schol-ars concluding the opposite—that the world’s organizations are main-taining their dissimilarity. Looking more closely, Child discovered thatmost studies concluding convergence focused on macro-level issues—such as the organization’s structure and its technology—whereas moststudies concluding divergence focused on micro-level issues—in partic-ular, the behavior of people within organizations. We can thereforeconclude that organizations worldwide are growing more similar, whilethe behavior of people within them is maintaining its cultural unique-ness. Organizational structures and strategies in Canada and Germany


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 62

may look increasingly similar from the outside, but Canadians andGermans continue to behave in their own culturally distinct fashionwithin each organization. Although both Germans and Canadians, forexample, install robotics in their factories, each culture interacts differ-ently with the robotics.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND NATIONAL CULTUREOver the last decade, managers and researchers have increasingly recog-nized the importance of organizational culture as a socializing influenceand climate creator (2;3;10;14;22). Unfortunately, rather than enhancingour understanding of national cultures (1;20), our understanding oforganizational culture has often tended to limit it. Many managersbelieve that organizational culture moderates or erases the influence ofnational culture. They assume that employees working for the sameorganization—even if they come from different countries—will behavemore similarly than differently. They implicitly believe that national cul-tural differences only become important in working with foreignclients, not in working with international colleagues within their ownorganization.

Does organizational culture erase or at least diminish nationalculture? Surprisingly, the answer is no (16). Employees and managers bringtheir cultural background and ethnicity to the workplace. As describedearlier, Hofstede found striking cultural differences within a singlemultinational corporation. In his study, national culture explained50 percent of the differences in employees’ attitudes and behaviors.National culture explained more of the differences than did professionalrole, age, gender, or race (11).9

Even more strikingly, Laurent found more pronounced cultural dif-ferences among employees from around the world working within thesame multinational company than among those working for organiza-tions in their native lands. After observing managers from nineWestern European countries and the United States who were workingfor companies in their native countries (e.g., Swedish managers workingfor Swedish companies, Italian managers working for Italian compa-nies), Laurent replicated his research in a single multinational corpo-ration with subsidiaries in each of the ten original countries. Heassumed that managers working for the same multinational corpora-tion would behave more similarly than their domestically employedcolleagues. Instead, as shown in Figure 2-6, he found the managersemployed by the multinational maintaining and even strengthening


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 63


18%

8%

53%

77%

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

France France

6% 4%

24%

46%

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

France France

36%

12%

56%

38%

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

France France

52%

85%

32%

46%

UnitedStates

UnitedStates

France France

PercentageAgreeing

PercentageAgreeing

PercentageAgreeing

PercentageAgreeing

“It is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most questions subordinates may raise about their work.”

“Most organizations would be better off if conflict could be eliminated forever.”

“Most managers have a clear notion of what we call an organizational structure.”

“Most managers seem to be more motivated by obtaining power than by achieving objectives.”

MultipleCompanies

SingleMNC

MultipleCompanies

SingleMNC

MultipleCompanies

SingleMNC

MultipleCompanies

SingleMNC

FIGURE 2-6 Organization Culture Magnifies Cross-Cultural Differences

Source: André Laurent, INSEAD. Fontainebleau, France. Adapted by Adler, 2007.

60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 64

their cultural differences. The cultural differences were significantlygreater among managers working within the same multinational cor-poration than they were among managers working for companies intheir own native countries. When working for multinational compa-nies, Germans seemingly became more German, Americans moreAmerican, Swedes more Swedish, and so on. Surprised by these results,Laurent replicated his research in two additional multinational corpo-rations, each with subsidiaries in the same nine Western Europeancountries and the United States. Similar to the results from the firstcompany, corporate culture did not reduce or eliminate national dif-ferences in the second and third corporations. Far from reducingnational differences, organizational culture maintains and enhancesthem.

Why might organizational culture enhance national cultural differ-ences? Neither managers nor researchers know the answer with certainty.Perhaps pressure to conform to the organizational culture of a foreign-owned company brings out employees’ resistance, causing them to clingmore firmly to their own national identities. Perhaps our ethnic cultureis so deeply ingrained in us by the time we reach adulthood that a com-pany’s organizational culture cannot erase it. Perhaps other as-yetunexplained forces are operating. The unambiguous conclusionremains, however, that employees maintain or enhance their culturallyspecific ways of working when employed by multinational or globalorganizations.

SUMMARYLaurent’s research documents a wide range of cultural differences in work-related values, attitudes, and behavior. Hofstede’s five dimensions—individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,career success/quality of life, and Confucian dynamism—along withTrompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s additional dimensions, highlightthe most important cultural differences influencing organizations. Tomanage effectively in either a global or a domestic multicultural envi-ronment, we must recognize which differences are operating and learnto use them to our advantage, rather than either attempting to ignorethe differences or simply allowing them to cause problems. Chapter 3presents various ways in which we perceive, describe, interpret, andevaluate cultural differences. Chapter 4 then explores approachesorganizations can take to benefit from the diversity of cultural back-grounds among their employees. The myth that organizations canoperate “beyond nationality” remains, in reality, a myth.


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 65

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. Cultural Self-Awareness. Where is your culture located on Hofstede’soriginal four dimensions and on universalism/particularism? Howdoes your organizational culture differ from your national cultureon each dimension?

2. Cross-Cultural Awareness. Select a culture with which you have hadcontact. How does it differ from your own culture on Hofstede’soriginal four dimensions and on universalism/particularism? Howmight these differences show up in negotiations or ongoing busi-ness relationships?

3. Cultural Self-Identity. In which ways are you a product of the culturein which you grew up? How does your personal cultural back-ground affect your values, attitudes, thinking, and behavior? Howdoes your cultural background make it easier for you to work inter-nationally? How does your cultural background hinder your effec-tiveness in working internationally?

4. Cross-Cultural Interpretation. Select a situation described in theinternational press involving two or more cultures. Analyze the situa-tion using Hofstede’s original four dimensions, plus the universalism/particularism and task/relationship dimensions. How does your cul-tural analysis help to explain the situation? Given your understand-ing of the cultural similarities and differences, what would you rec-ommend each side do (or avoid doing) to resolve the situation?

5. Cross-Cultural Analysis and Action. Ask a colleague to describe across-cultural situation in which he or she is currently involved.Analyze it from a cross-cultural perspective using any relevant dimen-sion discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. Based on your cross-culturalanalysis, what would you recommend your colleague do? Whatwould you recommend your colleague avoid doing?

NOTES

1. Ken Dang, MBA, McGill University.

2. Reprinted with permission of M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, N.Y.

3. Hofstede (11) originally labeled this dimension as masculinity/femininity.Since the dimension does not correspond with contemporary understand-ings of masculinity and femininity, however, Adler changed the labels tomore accurately reflect their underlying meanings. It should be noted thatHofstede never intended to suggest that today’s male and female studentsor managers possess or lack certain attributes that would make one a bettermanager than the other.

4. Although there is large cultural variance among Arab-speaking and WestAfrican countries, due to a limited number of respondents, Hofstede


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 66

combined Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone into a composite West Africanscore (WAF); Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia into a composite EastAfrican score (EAF); and Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia,and the United Arab Emirates into a composite score for Arab speakingcountries (ARA).

5. Shigeki Iwashita, MBA, McGill University.

6. Jennifer Oakes, BCOMM, McGill University.

7. See Note 3.

8. Matts Franck, MBA, McGill University.

9. Hofstede (10:373) posits that national cultures differ primarily in theirvalues, while organizational cultures differ mainly in their practices.See Hofstede (10) for a chapter devoted to variance in organizationalcultures.

REFERENCES

1. Adler, N. J.; & Jelinek, S.“Is ‘Organization Culture’ Culture Bound?”Human Resource Management, vol. 25, no. 1 (1986), pp. 73–90.

2. Boyacigiller, Nayike; Kleinberg, M. Jill; Phillips, Margaret E.; &Sackman, Sonja. “Conceptualizing Culture” in B. J. Punnett & O.Shenkar, eds., Handbook for International Management Research(Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 157–208.

3. Burke, Warner, ed., “Special Issue on Organizational Culture,”Organizational Dynamics (Autumn 1983).

4. Child, John. “Culture, Contingency & Capitalism in the Cross-National Study of Organizations,” in L. L. Cummings & B. M.Staw, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3 (Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press, 1981), pp. 303–356.

5. Chinese Culture Connection. “Chinese Values and the Search forCulture-Free Dimensions of Culture,” Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, vol. 18, no. 2 (1987), pp. 143–164.

6. Earley, Christopher; & Gibson, Christina. “Taking Stock in OurProgress on Individualism/Collectivism: 100 Years of Solidarityand Community,” Journal of Management, vol. 24, no. 3 (1998), pp.265–305.

7. Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. Copyright © 1976, 1981 byEdward T. Hall. Used by permission of Doubleday, a division ofBantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New York.

8. Hampden-Turner, Charles. Charting the Corporate Mind (Oxford,England: Blackwell, 1991).

9. Hofstede, Geert. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind(London: McGraw-Hill, 1991).


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 67

10. Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed.(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001).

11. Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: International Differencesin Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980).

12. Hofstede, Geert. “Motivation, Leadership, and Organizations: DoAmerican Theories Apply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics(Summer 1980), pp. 42–63.

13. Hofstede, Geert; & Bond, Michael H. “The Confucius Connection:From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth,” OrganizationalDynamics, vol. 16, no. 4 (1988), pp. 4–21.

14. Jelinek, Mariann; Smircich, Linda; & Hirsch, Paul, eds.,“Organizational Culture” (Special Issue), Administrative ScienceQuarterly, vol. 28 (September 1983), p. 3.

15. Laurent, André. “The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptionsof Management,” International Studies of Management andOrganization, vol. 13, no. 1–2 (1983), pp. 75–96.

16. Lubatkin, M.; Calori, R.; Very, Philippe; & Veiga, J. “ManagingMergers Across Borders: A Two-Nation Exploration of aNationally Bound Administrative Heritage,” Organization Science,vol. 9, no. 6 (1998), pp. 670–684.

17. McGregor, Douglas M. The Human Side of Enterprise, 25th anniver-sary edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985).

18. Muna, F. A. The Arab Executive (New York: Macmillan, 1980), Table6.2.

19. Nasierowski, Wojcieck; & Mikula, Bogusz. “Culture Dimensions ofPolish Managers: Hofstede’s Indices,” Organizational Studies, vol.19, no. 3 (1998), pp. 495–509.

20. Schneider, Susan. “National vs. Corporate Culture: Implicationsfor Human Resource Management,” Human ResourceManagement, vol. 27, no. 2 (1988), pp. 231–246.

21. Trompenaars, Fons; & Hampden-Turner, Charles. Riding theWaves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 2ded. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998).

22. Uttal, B. “The Corporate Culture Vultures,” Fortune, vol. 108, no. 8(1983), pp. 66–72.


60746_02_ch2_p044-068.qxd 06/06/2007 11:39 AM Page 68

international dimensions of organizational behavior ch 2

Business

managers attitudes

employees attitudes

work behavior

managers values

behavior of people

managers beliefs

managers original attitudes

theory x managers