week 6 Organizational Theory And Development (B01)

81

6

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t

Culture assessment can be either a vast bottomless pit or a focused exercise around specific issues based on the problem we are trying to solve. We sometimes need to assess the macro cultures of nations and occupations and to identify cultural DNA because we have specific problems to solve or changes to make. For this purpose we need selected dimensions that cut across macro cultures. This chapter will review the ways macro cultures can be assessed and show some of the dimensions that are useful in comparing macro cultures.

Travel and Literature

The three-level model for cultural analysis (see Chapter 2) can be help- ful in looking at macro cultures like nations and occupations when we reflect on what we observe in our own national or ethnic culture and what we experience in other countries when we travel. The artifactual level is what we encounter when we travel as a tourist or, in the case of an occupation like medicine, what we experience when we visit our doctor or go to a hospital. The espoused-values level is found in the pub- lished ideology of nations or in the official mission statements of occupa- tions. The basic assumptions, as with organizations, have to be inferred from talking to people, intensive personal observation over some period of time, or systematic observation and interviewing of “informants” as in ethnography.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

82 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

If we want to learn about another culture without traveling to it, we read literary accounts of what others have observed and inferred or ethnog- raphies, which provide a deeper analysis of the culture. This provides a par- tial analysis that can be supplemented by other sources such as the culture sections of guidebooks, films, novels, and other artistic media. Wikipedia carries a vast amount of cultural information, but it is not clear how much of all of this relates to the kinds of organizational issues we need to know about. If organizations are nested in macro cultures, what are the dimen- sions of those cultures that might be most relevant to understanding the beliefs, values, and norms of the organization? For that purpose we need the more focused work of ethnographers and researchers who have systemati- cally surveyed national cultures.

Survey Research

Hofstede’s IBM Study

Researchers have helped in providing us some dimensions into which nations can be categorized at their basic-assumption level. One of the ear- liest and most complete studies along these lines was Hofstede’s analysis of questionnaire responses of a comparable group of IBM employees across all the nations in which IBM had offices (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010). This work and subsequent follow-up studies have resulted in sta- tistically derived dimensions in which nations can be compared. I think of these as basic-assumption dimensions because they reflect beliefs, val- ues, and ways of thinking that are largely taken for granted and out of the conscious awareness of the members of those nations. All of the Hofstede dimensions are shown in Exhibit 6.1 but two of them are especially rel- evant to organizational culture analysis.

Individualism versus Collectivism. Based on Hofstede’s original data and various kinds of follow-ups, the countries studied can be com- pared with each other, and clusters of countries that are similar in their overall profile can be identified. For example, Hofstede’s comparative studies show countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia,

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 83

and the United Kingdom as more individualistic, whereas Pakistan, Indonesia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Japan come out as more collectivist.

In practice, every society and organization must honor both the group and the individual in the sense that neither makes sense without the other. Where cultures differ dramatically, however, is in the degree to which the espoused behavioral norms and values do or do not reflect the deeper assumption. On the surface, both the United States and Australia appear to be individualistic cultures, yet in Australia (and New Zealand), you hear many references to the “tall poppy syndrome”—that is, the tall poppy is the one that gets cut down. For example, an American teenager whose parents had relocated in Australia reported that after a brilliant ride on his surfboard, he had to say to his buddies, “Gee, that was a lucky one.” A person does not take personal credit in an individualistic culture that has strong espoused collectivist values. In contrast, though the United States espouses teamwork, it is evident in sports that it is the superstar who is admired and that building teams is seen as pragmatically necessary, not intrinsically desirable.

Individualistic societies define roles in terms of personal accom- plishment, license aggression through personal competition, put a high

Exhibit 6.1 Hofstede’s Basic Dimensions of Culture

individualism—collectivism: the degree to which the society is built around individual rights and duties versus the group being the basic unit of society to which individuals should subordinate themselves

power Distance: the social and psychological status and authority distance between the highest and lowest powered people in the society

masculinity—femininity Distance: the degree to which gender roles are differentiated and linked to work versus home and family

tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty: the degree to which members of the society feel comfortable in uncertain and ambiguous circumstances; the need for clear structures, processes, and rules

short-run vs. long-run time orientation: the degree to which members of society plan for and fantasize about the distant future versus being concerned only about the near future

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

84 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

premium on ambition, and define intimacy and love in very personal terms. More collectivist societies define identity and role more in terms of group membership, license aggression primarily toward other groups, put less value on personal ambition, and funnel love primarily within the group.

Power Distance. All groups and cultures have the issue of how to man- age aggression, so it is not surprising that broad surveys of cultures such as Hofstede’s identified the dimension of “power distance”—countries vary in the degree to which people in a hierarchical situation perceive a greater or lesser ability to control each other’s behavior. People in high power-distance countries, such as the Philippines, Mexico, and Venezuela, perceive more inequality between superiors and subordinates than do peo- ple in low power-distance countries, such as Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand. If we look at the same index by occupation, we find higher power distance among unskilled and semiskilled workers than among professional and managerial workers, as expected.

I will not comment on the other three dimensions because they are culturally so complex that one would have to study them one country at a time. The gender issue is also connected in a very complicated way with religion and ethnicity; in the United States, this results in a complex mix of norms and assumptions about the role of men and women. Tolerance for ambiguity and time orientation are discussed subsequently.

The Globe Study

A similar massive study was done by House and a team of researchers using survey data from 17,500 middle managers in several industries across 25 countries (House et al., 2004). They derived nine dimensions, as shown in Exhibit 6.2. The reader will note that many of the dimensions which House found are very similar to the Hofstede dimensions but the Globe study added several that are especially important for organizational analysis, especially Performance Orientation, Assertiveness, and Humane Orientation.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 85

Can Surveys Identify Macro Culture Dimensions? From a research meth- odology point of view, the problem with surveys is that they reflect what the researcher put into the questions in the first place and thus are limited by the researcher’s model of what should be asked for. It is also not clear whether reliance on individual responses to a survey can reveal collective beliefs, values, and norms, because individuals may be unaware of com- monalities that an observer would pick up immediately or be able to elicit quickly in a group interview.

It is also not clear whether dimensions that are statistically derived by factor analysis can be viewed as fundamental constructs around which to build culture theory. The dimensions are statistically valid and permit use- ful comparison between countries, but they are incomplete and lack the depth that comes out of the combination of participant observation, eth- nography, and group interviews in which shared beliefs, values, and norms become immediately visible. In the rest of this chapter, I review some important dimensions that come out of ethnographic research such as was done by Edward Hall (1959, 1966, 1977).

Exhibit 6.2 Globe Study Basic Dimensions of Culture

power Distance: the degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distrib- uted equally

uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events

gender egalitarianism: the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality future orientation: the extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors

such as delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future collectivism i (institutional): the degree to which organizational and societal insti-

tutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action

collectivism ii (in-group): the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohe- siveness in their organizations or families

performance orientation: the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence

assertiveness: the degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggres- sive in their relationships with others

humane orientation: the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

86 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

Ethnographic, Observational, and Interview- Based Research

Language and Context

The most obvious cultural dimension is, of course, the language that is spoken. The way we originally learn the culture of our own country is through the categories of what to look at, think about, and differentiate in our physical and human environment. We don’t learn what something is by looking it up in the dictionary but by having our parents pointing it out and naming it at the same time. Language defines not only the categories of what we see, hear, and feel but how we think about things and define meaning, as is well illustrated by the cartoon in Figure 6.1.

To make matters worse, languages themselves differ in terms of what Hall described as “high context”—how hard a given word or phrase is

Figure 6.1

Note: Reprinted with the permission of J. Whiting

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 87

to interpret because its meaning depends on context—or “low context” the words themselves are more precise and carry their meaning clearly. For example, one of my friends who worked in the Swiss subsidiary of the British parent bank NatWest asked me to help him figure out what the British bosses (high context) wanted from the Swiss subsidiary (low con- text) because they could never get a “clear” set of instructions. When I asked the Brits they assured me that they had been very clear and precise in what they had asked for! Ultimately I could not help much because I did not clearly understand what the Brits wanted either!

The Nature of Reality and Truth

A fundamental part of every culture is a set of assumptions about what is real and how to determine or discover what is real. Such assumptions tell members of a group how to determine what is relevant information, how to interpret information, and how to determine when they have enough of it to decide whether or not to act and what action to take. One useful distinc- tion is whether we rely on “physical reality” or “social reality.”

Physical reality refers to those things that can be determined empirically by objective or, in our Western tradition, “scientific” tests. For example, if two people are arguing about whether or not a piece of glass will break, they can hit it with a hammer and find out (Festinger, 1957). If two managers are arguing over which product to introduce, they can agree to define a test market and establish criteria by which to resolve the issue. However, if two managers are arguing over which of two political campaigns to support, both would have to agree that there are no physical criteria by which to resolve their conflict. They would have to then rely on whatever consen- sus they could achieve through more conversation or social tests that they might devise. High degrees of consensus then constitute “social reality,” as sociologists have pointed out, if something is defined as real, it is real in its consequences.

Social reality comes into play when we deal with assumptions about the nature of human nature—the correct way for humans to relate to nature and to each other, the distribution of power and the entire political process, assumptions about the meaning of life, ideology, religion, group boundaries, and culture itself. These are obviously matters of consensus

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

88 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

and are not empirically determinable. How a group defines itself and the values it chooses to live by obviously cannot be tested in terms of our traditional notions of empirical scientific testing, but they certainly can be strongly held and shared unanimously. If people believe in something and define it as real, it becomes real for that group. The dimensions iden- tified in the surveys deal primarily with social reality. There is no way to physically test whether it is better to be more or less tolerant of ambiguity or more or less individualistic, or who is right about a territorial conflict or a belief system, as illustrated in the bad joke about the naïve diplomat who tells the Arabs and the Israelis to settle their differences in a good Christian manner.

Moralism versus Pragmatism. A useful dimension for comparing national cultures is their approach to reality testing in terms of the moralism ver- sus pragmatism dimension (England, 1975). In his study of managerial values, England found that managers in different countries tended to be either pragmatic, seeking validation in their own experience, or moralistic, seeking validation in a general philosophy, moral system, or tradition. For example, he found that Europeans were typically more moralistic, whereas Americans were more pragmatic. If we apply this dimension to the basic underlying assumptions that a group makes, we can specify different bases for defining what is true, as shown in Exhibit 6.3.

What Is “Information”? How a group tests for reality and makes deci- sions also involves consensus on what constitutes data, what is informa- tion, and what is knowledge? As information technology has grown, the issue has become sharpened because of debates about the role of comput- ers in providing “information,” as captured well in the quip “garbage in, garbage out.” We now have “big data” as a presumed source of truth, yet gatherers of such data find themselves having to hire analysts with PhDs who have been trained in the logic of science and, therefore, can teach the gatherers how to get from raw data to some approximation of truth on which decisions can be based. The question of how valid statistically derived relationships and concepts are remains very ambiguous because even the statistically announced degrees of “significance” is itself a social norm established by statisticians. Much of our presumed “knowledge” is

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 89

based on statistically significant correlations without sufficient replication or concern about whether a correlation between two things can be inter- preted to mean that one causes the other.

Basic Time Orientation

Anthropologists have noted that every culture makes assumptions about the nature of time and has a basic orientation toward the past, present, or future (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Redding & Martyn-Johns, 1979;

Exhibit 6.3 Possible Criteria for Determining Truth

pure dogma, based on tradition or religion: it has always been done this way; it is god’s will; it is written in the scriptures.

revealed dogma, wisdom based on trust in the authority of wise men, formal leaders, proph- ets, or kings: our leader wants to do it this way; our consultants have recommended that we do it this way; she has had the most experience, so we should do what she says.

truth derived by a “rational-legal” process: as when we establish guilt or innocence via a legal process, we have agreed from the outset that there is no absolute truth, only socially determined truth; we have to take this decision to the marketing committee and do what they decide; the boss will have to decide this one, it is his area of respon- sibility; we will have to vote on it and go by majority rule; we agreed that this decision belongs to the production department head; we need consensus on this decision, we need unanimity.

truth as that which survives conflict and debate: We thrashed it out in three different com- mittees, tested it on the sales force, and the idea is still sound, so we will do it; let’s discuss it and see where we come out; does anyone see any problems with doing it this way; if not, that’s what we’ll do.

truth as that which works, the purely pragmatic criterion: let’s try it out this way and evalu- ate how we are doing.

truth as established by the dogma of scientific method: our research shows that this is the right way to do it; we’ve done three surveys, and they all show the same thing, so let’s act on them.”

for example, the u.s. culture and the occupational culture of electrical engineering are extremely pragmatic. truth is discovered by trial and error, negotiation, conflict, and debate. tradition and moral authority can be dismissed easily. physical reality and scientific evidence are touted as the right basis for decision making. in some asian societies the social or aesthetic traditions of how things are done may override pragmatism, as, for example, accepting nepotism as a good practice because family members can be trusted, while in the u.s. nepotism is rejected on the pragmatic ground that it leads to favoritism in decision making.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

90 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). For example, in their study of the various cultures in the U.S. Southwest, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck noted that some of the Indian tribes lived mostly in the past, the Spanish-Americans were oriented primarily toward the present, and the Anglo-Americans were oriented primarily toward the near future. Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars (1993, 2000), based on their own survey, found that among Asian countries, Japan is at the extreme of long-range planning, while Hong Kong is at the extreme of short-run planning.

How future oriented an organization should be is the subject of much debate, with many arguing that one of the problems of U.S. companies is that the financial context in which they operate (the stock market) forces a near-future orientation at the expense of longer-range planning. It is, of course, not clear which is cause and which is effect. Is the United States, culturally speaking, a near-future-oriented pragmatic society that has cre- ated certain economic institutions to reflect our need for quick and con- stant feedback, or have our economic institutions created the short-run pragmatic orientation?

In either case, the important point is that these cultural assumptions about time dominate daily thinking and activity to the point where a U.S. manager may have a hard time even imagining the alternative of a long- range planning process such as is typical in some Japanese industries. I have a Japanese colleague who is planning to translate and introduce some of my work to the Japanese market and already has planned either visits or video presentations for me in 2017 and 2018!

Monochronic and Polychronic Time. Hall (1959, 1966) points out that in the United States, most managers view time as monochronic, an infi- nitely divisible linear ribbon that can be divided into appointments and other compartments but within which only one thing can be done at a time. If more than one thing must be done within, say, an hour, we divide the hour into as many units as we need and then do one thing at a time. When we get disorganized or have a feeling of being overloaded, we are advised to do one thing at a time. Time is viewed as a valuable commodity that can be spent, wasted, killed, or made good use of; but once a unit of time is over, it is gone forever. Hassard (1999) points out that this concept

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 91

of “linear time” was at the heart of the industrial revolution in the shift to measuring productivity in terms of the time it took to produce something, insertion of time clocks to measure the amount of work done, paying peo- ple by the amount of time they work, and emphasizing the metaphor that “time is money.”

In contrast, some cultures in southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East regard time as primarily polychronic, a kind of medium defined more by what is accomplished than by a clock and within which several things can be done simultaneously. Even more extreme is the cyclical concept of time as a recurring series of phases, rather circular in form. One season fol- lows the next, one life leads into another as seen in some Asian societies (Sithi-Amnuai, 1968).

The manager who operates according to polychronic time “holds court” in the sense that he or she deals simultaneously with a number of subor- dinates, colleagues, and even bosses, keeping each matter in suspension until it is finished. Though there is an emphasis on monochronicity in the United States, polychronic time concepts do exist as when a doctor or den- tist sees several patients in adjacent offices or a car salesman has several customers looking at cars and rotates among them. Modern information and social communication technologies have illustrated some of the poten- tial problems of polychronicity by questioning whether texting or phoning can or should be done while driving.

Time concepts also define in a subtle way how status is displayed, as illustrated by the frustrating experiences that Americans and northern Europeans have in Latin cultures, where lining up and doing things one at a time are less common. I once stood in line at a small post office in southern France only to discover that some people barged to the head of the line and actually got service from the clerk. My friends pointed out to me that in this situation not only does the clerk have a more polychronic view of the world, leading the clerk to respond to those who shout loudest, but that a higher-status person considers it legitimate to break into the line and get service first as a display of status. If others live in the same status system, they do not get offended by being kept waiting. In fact, it was pointed out to me that by staying in line and fulminating, I was displaying a low sense of my own status; otherwise, I would have been up at the head of the line demanding service as well.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

92 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

Planning Time and Development Time. In a study of biotechnology com- panies, Dubinskas (1988) found an important difference between the occu- pational cultures of biologists and managers who worked together in the biotech industry. The managers viewed time in a linear, monochronic way, with targets and milestones that were tied to external objective realities such as market opportunities and the stock market. Dubinskas labeled this form of time planning time.

In contrast, the biologists seemed to operate from something Dubinskas called development time, best characterized as “things will take as long as they will take,” referring to natural biological processes that have their own inter- nal time cycles. To caricature the distinction, a manager might say we need the baby in five months to meet a business target, while the biologist would say, sorry, but it takes at least nine months to make a baby. Planning time seeks closure; open-ended development time can extend far into the future.

The Meaning of Space: Distance and Relative Placement

Our assumptions about the meaning and use of space are among the most subtle aspects of macro culture, because assumptions about space, like those about time, operate outside of awareness and are taken for granted. At the same time, when those assumptions are violated, very strong emotional reactions occur because space comes to have very powerful symbolic mean- ings, as expressed in the current phrase, “Don’t get into my space.” One of the most obvious ways that rank and status are symbolized in organizations is by the location and size of offices.

Hall (1966) points out that in some cultures, if someone is walking in a certain direction, the space ahead is perceived to belong to that person, so that if someone crosses in front of the individual, that person is “violat- ing” the other’s space. In other cultures, notably some Asian ones, space is initially defined as communal and shared, allowing for the complex flow of people, bicycles, cars, and animals you may see in a Chinese city street with everyone somehow moving forward and no one getting killed or trampled.

How we orient ourselves relative to others reflects our perception of what kind of relationship we are expressing. Formal relationships are gen- erally conducted with a distance of several feet separating us, whereas inti- mate relationships allow for speaking to each other with just a few inches

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 93

between us and physical contact. The greater the status gap, the greater the distance the subordinate will maintain, while the superior has the license to get close, especially if it is part of the job as in being a doctor or dentist.

Feelings about distance have biological roots. Animals have a clearly defined flight distance (the distance that will elicit fleeing if the animal is intruded upon) and critical distance (the distance that will elicit attack- ing behavior if the animal is intruded upon or “cornered”). Conditions of crowding not only elicit pathological behavior in nonhuman species but also elicit aggression in humans. Hence, most cultures have fairly clear rules about how to define personal and intimate space through the use of cues to permit what Hall (1959, 1966) calls “sensory screening,” including partitions, walls, sound barriers, and other physical devices. We use eye contact, body position, and other personal devices to signal respect for the privacy of others (Goffman, 1959; Hatch, 1990; Steele, 1973, 1981).

We also learn how to manage what Hall (1959, 1966) calls intrusion distance—that is, how far away to remain from others who are in personal conversation without interrupting the conversation yet making it known that one wants attention when appropriate. In some cultures, including ours, intrusion occurs only when someone interrupts with speech (someone can stand close by without “interrupting”), whereas in other cultures, even entering the visual field of another person constitutes a bid for attention and hence is seen as an interruption. In these cultural settings, the use of physical barriers such as closed offices has an important symbolic meaning— it is the only way to maintain a feeling of privacy (Hall, 1966).

The Symbolism of Space. Every society develops ways of allocating space to symbolize important values. At the organizational level, clear norms emerge on how much space one should have and where it should be located. These norms reflect basic assumptions about the role of space use in getting work accomplished and space as a symbol of status. The best views and loca- tions are usually reserved for the highest-status people. Senior executives are typically on the higher floors of buildings and often are allocated special spaces such as private conference rooms and private bathrooms.

Sociologists point out that one important function of private bathrooms is to enable leaders to present themselves properly to their subordinates and the public and to preserve the image of leaders as “super-human” beings who

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

94 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

do not have the ordinary needs of those at lower levels (Goffman, 1967). In some countries or organizations, it would not be comfortable for the employee to find himself urinating next to the president of the corporation.

Some organizations use very precise space allocation as a direct status symbol. The headquarters building of General Foods was designed with movable walls so that, as product managers were promoted, the office size could be adjusted to reflect their new rank. The company had a department that allocated the kind of carpeting, furniture, and wall decorations that went with particular rank levels. Where buildings are located, how they are built, and the kind of architecture involved differ in different countries reflecting deeper values, as can be seen by the location and style of cathe- drals and churches in different countries.

Because buildings and the environments around them are highly visible and relatively permanent, countries and organizations attempt to symbol- ize important values and assumptions through their design. The physical layout not only has this symbolic function but is often used to guide and channel the behavior of members of the organization, thereby becoming a powerful builder and reinforcer of norms (Berg & Kreiner, 1990; Gagliardi, 1990; Steele, 1973, 1981). The companies in Silicon Valley (e.g., Google, Apple, Facebook, Genentech, etc.) use their centralized spaces not as for- tresses but as magnets, making the amenities so attractive that employ- ees want to spend most of their time inside these areas, attractively called “campuses.”

Body Language. One of the more subtle uses of space is how we use ges- tures, body position, and other physical cues to communicate our sense of what is going on in a given situation and how we relate to the other people in it. On the gross level, those we sit next to, physically avoid, touch, bow to, look at, and so on, convey our perceptions of relative status and inti- macy. The foregoing discussion of “distance” that we maintain from others is a prime example. As sociologists have observed, however, there are many more subtle cues that convey our deeper sense of what is going on and our assumptions about the right and proper way to behave in any given situa- tion (Goffman, 1967; Van Maanen, 1979).

Rituals of deference and demeanor that reinforce hierarchical relation- ships are played out in our physical and temporal positioning, as when a

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 95

subordinate knows just where to stand at a meeting relative to the boss and how to time his or her questions or comments when disagreeing with the boss. The boss, for her part, knows that she must sit at the head of the table in the boardroom and time her remarks to the group appropriately. But only insiders know the full meaning of all these time or space cues, remind- ing us forcefully that what we observe around spatial arrangements and the behavioral use of time are cultural artifacts, difficult to decipher if we do not have additional data obtained from insiders through interview, obser- vation, and joint inquiry.

It would be highly dangerous to use our own cultural lenses to interpret what we observe. In the South African coal mines, the white supervisors mistrusted the native employees because they were “shifty eyed and never looked you in the eye,” not realizing that in the tribes from which they came it was a serious mark of disrespect to look directly into the eyes of a superior (Silberbauer, 1968). Special training programs had to be set up for the supervisors to teach them how to interpret employee behavior. However, in the United States where eye contact is considered a “good” indicator of attention, I have had difficulty convincing dialogue groups to “talk to the campfire” instead of directly to each other as is explained in the following chapter.

Time, Space, and Activity Interaction. Becoming oriented in both time and space is fundamental for an individual in any new situation. Thus far, we have analyzed time and space as separate dimensions, but, in real- ity, they always interact in complex ways around the activity that is sup- posed to occur. It is easiest to see this in relation to the basic forms of time. Monochronic time assumptions have specific implications for how space is organized. If someone must have individual appointments and privacy, he or she needs areas in which they can be held, thus requiring either desks that are far enough apart, cubicles, or offices with doors. Because mono- chronic time is linked with efficiency, the individual also requires a space layout that allows a minimum of wasted time. Thus it must be easy for peo- ple to contact each other, distances between important departments must be minimal, and amenities such as toilets and eating areas must be placed in such a way as to save time. In fact, in DEC, the liberal distribution of water coolers, coffee machines, and small kitchens around the organization

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

96 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

clearly signaled the importance of continuing to work even as one satisfied bodily needs. The extensive facilities in Google suggest that the employee should not feel any need to leave the premises and should always be com- fortable at work.

Polychronic time, in contrast, requires spatial arrangements that make it easy for simultaneous events to occur, where privacy is achieved by being near someone and whispering rather than by retreating behind closed doors. Thus, large rooms are built more like amphitheaters to permit a senior per- son to hold court, or sets of offices or cubicles are built around a central core that permits easy access to everyone. We might also expect more visually open environments such as the office bullpens that permit supervisors to survey an entire department so that they can easily see who might need help or who is not working.

When buildings and offices are designed in terms of certain intended work patterns, both distance and time are usually considered in the physi- cal layout (Allen, 1977; Steele, 1973, 1981, 1986). These design issues become very complex, however, because information and communica- tion technology is increasingly able to shrink time and space in ways that may not have been considered. For example, a group of people in pri- vate offices can communicate by telephone, email, fax, and videophone, and can even become a virtual team or meeting by using conference calls enhanced by various kinds of video software (Grenier & Metes, 1992; Johansen et al., 1991).

Human Essence and Basic Motivation

Every culture has shared assumptions about what it means to be human, what our basic instincts are, and what kinds of behavior are considered inhuman and therefore grounds for ejection from the group. Being human is both a physical property and a cultural construction, as we have seen throughout history. Slavery was often justified by defining slaves as “not human.” In ethnic and religious conflicts the “other” is often defined as not human. Within the category of those defined as human, we have further variation. In their comparative study, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) noted that in some societies humans are seen as basically evil, in others

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 97

as basically good, and in still others as mixed or neutral, capable of being either good or bad.

Closely related are assumptions about how perfectible human nature is. Is our goodness or badness intrinsic so we must simply accept what we are, or can we, through hard work, generosity, or faith, overcome our badness and earn our salvation or nirvana? Where a given macro culture ends up in terms of these categories is often related to the religion that dominates that cultural unit, but, as we shall see, this issue is very much at the heart of leadership.

What assumptions do leaders make about the fundamental motivation of workers? In the United States we have seen a transition across several sets of such assumptions:

1. Workers as rational-economic actors

2. Workers as social animals with primarily social needs

3. Workers as problem solvers and self-actualizers, whose primary needs are to be challenged and to use their talents

4. Workers as complex and malleable (Schein, 1980)

Early theories of employee motivation in the United States were almost completely dominated by the assumption that the only incentives available to managers were monetary ones because it was assumed that the only essen- tial motivation of employees was economic self-interest. The Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; Homans, 1950) launched a new series of “social” assumptions, postulating that employees are motivated by the need to relate well to their peer and membership groups and that such motivation often overrides economic self-interest. The main evidence for these assumptions came from studies of restriction of output, which showed clearly that workers would reduce their take-home pay rather than break the norm of “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.” Furthermore, workers will put pressure on high producers (“rate busters”) to work less hard and make less money to preserve the basic norm of a fair day’s work.

Subsequent studies of work, particularly on the effects of the assembly line, introduced another set of assumptions: employees are self-actualizers

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

98 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

who need challenge and interesting work to provide self-confirmation and valid outlets for the full use of their talents (Argyris, 1964). Motivation the- orists, such as Maslow (1954), proposed that there is a hierarchy of human needs and an individual will not experience and work on the “higher” needs until lower ones are satisfied. If the individual is in a survival mode, eco- nomic motives will dominate; if survival needs are met, social needs come to the fore; if social needs are met, self-actualization needs become salient.

It is at this point not clear whether in any given organization it will be the deeper national assumptions or the managerial occupational assump- tions that will dominate a particular reward system. In the Western capitalist system, money and the assumption that people are primarily motivated by it still appears to predominate in the managerial culture. But my recent con- versations with Danica Purg, who runs a very forward-looking Management School in Bled, Slovenia, suggest that the countries that were dominated for decades by communism take full employment very seriously and make it very hard to “fire” someone; this makes life difficult for the young entrepre- neurial type who has been bred on “no job security” and “no organizational loyalty expected.”

Assumptions about Appropriate Human Activity

How do humans relate to their environment? Several basically different orientations have been identified in cross-cultural studies, and these have direct implications for variations we can see in organizations.

The “Doing” Orientation. At one extreme, we can identify a “doing” orientation, which correlates closely with (1) the assumption that nature can be controlled and manipulated, (2) a pragmatic orientation toward the nature of reality, and (3) a belief in human perfectibility (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). In other words, it is taken for granted that the proper thing for humans to do is to take charge and actively control their environ- ment and their fate.

Doing is the predominant orientation in the United States and is cer- tainly a key assumption of U.S. managers, reflected in the World War II slogan “We can do it,” immortalized in the Rosie the Riveter posters and in the stock American phrases “getting things done” and “let’s do something

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 99

about it.” The notion that “the impossible just takes a little longer” is cen- tral to U.S. business ideology. Organizations driven by this assumption seek to grow and to dominate the markets they are in.

The “Being” Orientation. At the other extreme is a “being “orientation, which correlates closely with the assumption that nature is powerful and humanity is subservient to it. This orientation implies a kind of fatalism: because we cannot influence nature, we must become accepting and enjoy what we have. We must focus more on the here and now, on individual enjoyment, and on acceptance of whatever comes. Many religions operate on this assumption. Organizations operating according to this orientation look for a niche in their environment that allows them to survive, and they try to adapt to external realities rather than create markets or dominate some portion of the environment.

The “Being-in-Becoming” Orientation. A third orientation, which lies between the two extremes of doing and being, is “being-in-becoming,” referring to the idea that the individual must achieve harmony with nature by fully developing his or her own capacities, thereby achieving a perfect union with the environment. The focus is on development rather than a static condition. Through detachment, meditation, and control of those things that can be controlled (e.g., feelings and bodily functions), the individual achieves full self-development and self-actualization. The focus is on what the person is and can become rather than what specific thing the person can accomplish. In short, “the being-in-becoming orientation emphasizes that kind of activity which has as its goal the development of all aspects of the self as an integrated whole” (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 17).

The definition of what constitutes growth and whether or not it should be encouraged varies widely. In Essochem Europe a talented country manager was refused a promotion to be European manager because he was “too emo- tional,” which reflected the parent company’s assumptions about management being of necessity unemotional. In contrast, DEC was extreme in the degree to which it allowed and encouraged all forms of self-development, which was later reflected in the degree to which “alumni” of DEC, now working on their own or in other organizations, used the phrase “I grew up in DEC.”

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

100 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

In Ciba-Geigy, it was clear that each person had to fit in and become part of the organizational fabric and that socialization into the existing mode was therefore how development was defined. To succeed to senior executive levels, a manager had to have had a successful overseas assign- ment and had to develop cross-cultural skills mandated by the company.

Countries and the organizations within them differ in how much they consider the growth and development of their people to be an important management function, even as academics advocate that human develop- ment and successful organizational performance should both be possible (Chapman & Sisodia, 2015; Keegan & Lahey, 2016).

Assumptions about the Nature of Human Relationships

At the core of every culture are assumptions about the proper way for indi- viduals to relate to each other to make the group safe, comfortable, and productive. When such assumptions are not widely shared, we speak of anarchy and anomie. This set of assumptions creates norms and behavioral rules that deal primarily with the two central issues of (1) what the rela- tionship should be between higher and lower status people (and by implica- tion between the individual and the group), and (2) what the relationship should be between peers and fellow team members.

These rules are taught early in life and come to be labeled as “proper behavior,” etiquette, tact, good manners, and situationally appropriate behavior—that is, know your place in the structure and know what is appropriate. These rules change and reflect current social issues as is best exemplified by the importance of knowing what it is “politically correct” to say. What is proper and “situationally appropriate” varies with the degree of “intimacy” of the relationship, which in most cultures can be divided into four “levels” (Schein, 2016).

Levels of Relationship. The boundaries between these levels vary by country, religion, and ethnicity, but every macro culture has some version of these broad levels, as laid out in Exhibit 6.4. Understanding the rules of situational propriety becomes critical when macro cultures interact. For example, in a Brazilian subsidiary of a multinational chemical company a new CEO from the German branch opened his first meeting with a very

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 101

formal agenda that included time allocations for each item and very pre- cise instructions. He proudly presented the agenda to open the meeting and was greeted with laughter and joking, leading to his total humiliation and severely damaging his relationship with the local executives. Neither he nor the Brazilians who were used to very informal management understood that neither his nor their behavior was situationally appropriate.

Exhibit 6.4 Four Levels of Relationship in Society

Level -1. Exploitation, No Relationship or a Negative Relationship examples: prisoners, poWs, slaves, sometimes members of extremely different cultures or

those we consider underdeveloped, sometimes very old or very emotionally ill people, the victims or “marks” for criminals or con men

comment: We recognize, of course, that inside these groups intense relationships form and that if we choose to build a relationship with someone in this category we are able to do so. But we don’t owe them anything and don’t have an expected level of trust or openness with them.

Level 1. Acknowledgement, Civility, Transactional Role Relations examples: strangers on the street, seatmates on trains and planes, service people whose

help we need, which includes professional helpers of all sorts whose behavior is gov- erned by the defined role definitions in the culture

comment: the parties do not “know” each other but treat each other as fellow humans whom we trust to a certain degree not to harm us and with whom we have polite levels of openness in conversation. professional helpers fall into this category because their role definition requires them to maintain a “professional distance.”

Level 2. Recognition as a Unique Person; Working Relationships examples: casual friendships, people whom we know “as people,” members of working

teams, people whom we have come to know through common work or educational experiences, clients or subordinates who have developed personal but not intimate relationships with their helpers or bosses

comment: this kind of relationship implies a deeper level of trust and openness in terms of (1) making and honoring commitments and promises to each other; (2) agreeing to not undermine each other or harm what we have agreed to do; and (3) agreeing not to lie to each other or withhold information relevant to our task.

Level 3. Strong Emotions—Close Friendships, Love and Intimacy examples: relationships where stronger positive emotions are involved comment: this kind of relationship is usually viewed as undesirable in work or helping

situations. trust here goes one step beyond level 2 in that the participants not only agree not to harm each other but assume that they will actively support each other when possible or when needed and be more open.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

102 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

In terms of the levels of relationship, the German CEO treated the meeting as a Level 1 formal transaction and was not aware that the Brazilian group had evolved into a Level 2 personal set of relationships. When strangers meet and become confused about how personal to be, it can be awkward and uncomfortable, but when this happens across an important hierarchical boundary, it can be humiliating and destructive. Pragmatic, action-oriented U.S. executives in Asian and Latin countries often fail to understand that their Level 1 formal “professional” demeanor does not elicit the kind of trust and openness that the local executives want, and that makes them want to meet over dinner or informally before they talk business. They want some degree of Level 2 personalization to establish trust, while the U.S. executive will count on contracts and signatures.

A similar issue arises around peer relationships and teamwork. We always have a choice in any new relationship to define it as a Level 1 for- mal transaction or to make it a Level 2 more personalized relationship by opening ourselves up or asking personal questions (Schein, 2016). The big question is whether an appropriate level of trust and openness to allow effective work to be done can be established in a Level 1 relationship, or whether good working relationships always require some degree of Level 2 personalization. This issue has become more pressing as technological com- plexity has created more interdependence, not just among team members but even across the hierarchical boundaries. More and more managers and leaders are discovering that they are genuinely dependent on subordinates who know more and have more operational skills than they do, which highlights the degree to which leaders have to become humble and accept levels of vulnerability that they may not be used to (Schein, 2013, 2016).

Finding ways to establish common rules of situational propriety and defining together at what level of relationship we can work together will be the major challenges as we move into a more multicultural world.

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter has reviewed some of the major dimensions that have been proposed for understanding cultural differences at the macro culture national and ethnic level. My choice of what to include was premised on which dimensions would be most useful when we try to understand how

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e m a c r o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t 103

organizational cultures are nested in broader macro cultures. We have now reviewed the major ways in which language, reality, time, space, truth, human activity, nature, and relationships can be categorized.

It is the patterning of assumptions around each of these issues that cre- ates the totality we end up calling “the culture” of the country, recognizing that there are still other dimensions of what constitutes a culture that were not reviewed. Culture is deep, wide, complex, and multidimensional, so we should avoid the temptation to stereotype countries in terms of just a few salient dimensions as the survey-based models suggest.

The rules that govern relationships across hierarchical and functional boundaries are perhaps the most important area to explore when mul- ticultural groups try to work together. A conceptual model of levels of relationship was proposed to organize that analysis and to suggest that the most important area of consensus to be sought is whether or not it is possible to build open and trusting relationships at the Level 1 transactional, pro- fessional level or whether the growing complexity of work requires always building some form of a personalized Level 2 relationship. We explore pos- sible ways of doing this in the following chapter.

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

104 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a n D l e a D e r s h i p

Questions for Readers

1. Which of the dimensions surprised you most, because you had never thought of culture in that way?

2. Which issues have bothered you most when you interact with someone from another culture?

3. What are your own attitudes about time? How late can a person be without offending you? How late do you allow yourself to be when you are running late?

4. Which excuses are legitimate for being late?

5. Have you observed the need to become “more personal” in your various relationships to build trust and open communication?

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-09-06 17:27:59.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.