Managing Internationalisation

Figure 2-34: Reconciling Globalism and Localism43

The journey to reconciliation starts with an understanding of the complementarity of both seemingly opposing values, the use of humour to make dilemmas “digestible” to all participants and the deliberate use of language to pose the right questions. Practical advice provided by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner concerning the reconciliation process includes mapping out a cultural space through interviews or questionnaires in order to find the basic dilemma in the problem provided. This helps to gain a deeper understanding. Other useful techniques include drawing meta frames of the dilemma with text and pictures, accepting waves and cycles as a natural way to resolve difficult issues and appreciate synergy of two values as mutually enhancing.44 Further examples will be discussed in the suitable chapters.

VIPs

2.4Globe Study: More Issues Arising

The influence of culture on business issues is still a favourite topic for many researchers worldwide. One truly international approach was endeavoured in the so called GLOBE study. The acronym GLOBE stands for “Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness” and was conducted as a multi-method and multiphase research programme. It was designed to conceptualise, operationalise, test, and validate a cross-level integrated theory of the relationship of culture and societal, organisational, and leaders effectiveness. During the phases 1 and 2 in the middle of the 1990s altogether 170 researchers throughout the world combined their efforts to collect and analyse survey data from 17,300 (middle) managers in 951 organisations and 62 societies. The first omnibus publication edited by House et al. (2004) provided findings about culture, leadership and organisations on 800 pages.45 Additional in-depth studies of 25 societies were published by Chhokar et. al. in 2008.46

The GLOBE research project defined culture as “shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across generations.”47 This definition was applied on the societal and organisational level. Culture was examined based on practices and values. Practices were defined as “the way things are done in this culture” whereas values were defined as judgements about “the way things should be done”.48 The methodological approach followed was very sophisticated and based on multiple methods and checks. The research was designed by multicultural teams with the clear intention to bypass typical cultural biases already in the setup of the survey.

Finally, GLOBE used nine major attributes or dimensions of culture, several of them based on Hofstede’s research. An overview of these is provided in Figure 2-35. Special emphasis was laid on the analysis of the cultural dimensions and several dependent variables, for instance the Human Development Index, Gross National Product per capita, measures of welfare of society members as well as certain leadership dimensions. Details of these findings will be discussed in the respective chapters dealing with these issues.

Figure 2-35: GLOBE: Nine Cultural Dimensions49

The GLOBE study grouped 62 participating societies in 10 distinct country clusters, based on previous empirical studies and other factors such as common language, geography, religion, and historical accounts. These are depicted in Figure 2-36.

Figure 2-36: GLOBE: Country Clusters50

VIPs

2.5Critical Acclaim

The three previously introduced models of culture are subject to profound criticism concerning the defined concepts of culture, the measurement of culture “per se”, the dimensions utilised in comparison to alternative dimensions used by other scientists and the applied methodology.

2.5.1Typical Problems of Cross-Cultural Research

All cross-cultural research is subject to various criticisms based on typical challenges arising from the extremely complex and opaque research topic itself. These include:51

1 Definition problems of all terms used. These concern the definition of “culture” itself as well as all terminology used in questionnaires or interviews. A special problem is the translation of the defined concepts in other languages.

2 Assuming incorrect equivalencies concerning functions, concepts, instruments, and measurement. People from different cultures might have a different understanding of certain (business) functions, of concepts like loyalty or might interpret the scales in the questionnaires in different ways.

3 Choosing non-representative participants. If all participants of the survey originate from the same background, for example one organisation or one profession or one company level, it is possible that these do not represent a fair sample of the countries studied. Their views might be influenced by a very distinct (sub-)culture.

4 Methodological simplicity, as the methodology is for example often based on one ethnocentric pattern and one timeframe, providing bias, misinterpretation and inaccuracies. Therefore, many critics claim the basic principle that a cultural research should be based on a multi-disciplinary approach.

Many scientists, especially psychologists and sociologists, claim that cross-cultural research providing country scores only produces stereotypes, which is not an appropriate way to deal with cultural issues. Fons Trompenaars defends the usefulness of crosscultural models by arguing that all models categorise and are therefore in fact stereotypes. Using models for cultures can be acceptable if the people dealing with this kind of stereotype meet two conditions. The first is that they are conscious about it and the second is that they postpone judgement. For example, the sixth dilemma illustrates that Asians are more polychronic and Westerners are more monochronic. This is obviously an exaggeration. There certainly are polychronic Westerners and sequential Asians. This stereotype mainly warns that the chance that there are people with the other inclination is higher when meeting people from the other culture.52 This warning might lead to negative consequences if people immediately put a critical judgement on it. When they are able to postpone judgement and treat this issue as a reminder to accept different solutions with an open mind, the knowledge about this stereotype can facilitate all kinds of international encounters.

2.5.2Critical Acclaim of Hofstede’s Dimensions

The criticism concerning the Hofstede model is based on some of the points cited in 2.5.1.53

To 1.: The level of culture researched is not clearly defined, as Hofstede tries to approach values by questioning behaviour. There is a controversy concerning the legitimacy of such an approach, as the basic assumptions that are seen to form the most important (and hidden) parts of culture are not touched.

To 3.: All participants of the study are employees or managers of IBM. Some argue that the strong company culture of IBM leads to uniformity of their personnel in certain aspects, which provides a bias to the study. Hofstede argues the opposite and explains that just because of this certain homogeneity he is able to ascribe the differences observed to country cultures. Also, the IBM background enables him to avoid equivalency problems (as defined in 2.)

To 4.: Hofstede’s methodology is criticised in several aspects. His dimensions are not seen as appropriately selective and their denomination as not completely accurate. His comparison of different cultures is seen as superficial as it is not based on a thorough analysis of the culture described. Especially the equalisation of culture and countries is criticised, as many countries have within their borders several (sub)cultures that should be researched separately. Another critical aspect (also referred to by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner in 1997) concerns the questions he employed that were seen as mainly an imitation of questions used in various US-based psychological profile tests.

The existence of a cultural bias in the setup of the original study was proven impressively in the findings of the Chinese Value Survey. However, Hofstede acknowledged these findings willingly and added them to his framework. It is natural for research issues that corrections and additions occur over time, given the willingness of more researchers worldwide to contribute to the original findings. In this respect Hofstede managed to induce many following studies.

Altogether, Hofstede’s framework and the range of his data collection for nowadays more than 90 countries has an outstanding effect on academics and practitioners dealing with cultural issues worldwide. As his model was the first to allow not only the classification of countries based on different criteria but also a sound comparison of them, it highly contributed to the inclusion of intercultural issues in the research of strategy, leadership, organisation, marketing and finance. It was also instrumental in the implementation of business systems for international companies, for example in the definition of compensation practices, training design, leadership styles and management control systems.

2.5.3Critical Acclaim of Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner’s Dilemmas

After their early publications, one of their main critics was Hofstede himself in 1996 who argued, that Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner essentially measure Hofstede’s dimensions Individualism and Power Distance by using dilemmas that were interrelated. He also accused Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner of tuning their messages to what they think their customers like to hear, being more interested in commerce than in scholarship.54 The first edition of their dimensions was mainly tailored to the needs of professionals and consequently lacked detailed information about their methodological approach. This was the main area of criticism from other scientists. In a very measured response in 1997, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner defended their approach and provided detailed information about their research methodology.55

Notwithstanding, the dilemma approach of Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner is subject to intense criticism based on the typical problems reviewed in 2.5.1.56

To 2.: The findings of Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner are visibly subject to incorrect equivalencies. One very obvious example is mentioned by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner themselves concerning the percentages for not painting the house in their dilemma “specific versus diffuse”. They mention that the figures provided for Japan are probably based on a cultural misunderstanding of concept, as Japanese people generally do not paint houses, preferring wooden houses anyway.57

To 3.: The selected respondents where all participating in Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s management trainings that should sensitise for cultural issues. Some argue that these people were in the preparation of visiting a foreign country and hence already unusually self-conscious to intercultural issues. This would not be representative for inhabitants of a country in general.

To 4.: It remains unclear how Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner arrived at the identified 7 dimensions. As they rely heavily on former research from other scientists, they chose some of the dimensions at random from mainly a literature analysis. Also, the operationalisation of the dilemmas is criticised. It is not seen as proven, that the chosen statements really measure what they should measure. Some of the dimensions are even measured by different constructs, which could be seen as constituting different sub-dimensions that are not clearly defined. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner provide differing dimensions and findings in different publications – some of them only with slightly changed denominations, some with differing contents. As a result, a claim to absolute right concerning the 7 dimensions is not accepted.

Despite the criticism, the dilemma approach of Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner is widely used in international management trainings and research. Their basic claim, that the behaviour in and of companies is affected by culture, is an important counterpoint to the predominant US-based notion of universally valid management approaches. The generally understandable language and the abundance of practical examples allow an easy use for practitioners. The database offers detailed information on countries that are not explicitly covered in Hofstede’s research, especially concerning Eastern Europe. They vehemently promote an increased awareness of cultural diversity within countries based on ethnic differences, for example within the US. This is complemented by the consequent consideration of differing cultures of companies (in mergers, for example), business sectors, professions and genders. Their detailed reconciliation process constitutes one of the few practical step-by-step approaches for prevalent leadership challenges in international organisations.

Apart from that, the success of the framework could partly be ascribed to Fons Trompenaars outstanding achievements as consultant and speaker.58

2.5.4Critical Acclaim of the GLOBE Study

The designers of the GLOBE study considered many of the above mentioned points of criticism in their research approach:59

1 The definitions were discussed extensively with an international research team. The questionnaire was scrupulously tested by translation and retranslation as well as content analysis of documents, thus minimising definition problems.

2 In order to achieve certain equivalencies, all respondents were middlemanagers. This should ensure a certain comparability of the results for different cultures. The testing of terms also helped to prevent differences of understanding of the concepts used.

3 The respondents came from more than 900 different companies and 3 different business sectors of more than 60 different cultures, thus avoiding the influence of a distinctive company or business culture.

4 The concept includes a clear distinction of two cultural levels: the value level (how it should be) and the behaviour level (how it is), mirroring the state-of-the-art differentiation of percepta-level and concepta-level that are not always in harmony. As the approach was defined by 170 researchers from different nations and regions and from different professional backgrounds, the GLOBE study represents an outstanding multicultural effort. The dominance of an ethnocentric pattern can therefore be eliminated completely. The applied research and analysis methodology was highly sophisticated and thoroughly challenged.

Despite these efforts, several points of criticism still remain. Some critics stress for example the possible distortions due to the sole use of middle managers as respondents. The equalisation of countries and cultures is still a point for heated discussions, although GLOBE made some allowance for relevant sub-cultures as for example the separation of South Africa in a black sample and a white sample.

Hofstede criticised the multitude of inter-correlated dimensions that could have been condensed to fewer meta-dimensions. As nearly all dimensions show positive correlations of national welfare, these dimensions are influenced by the national welfare itself and do not have to be explained by cultural peculiarities.60 The GLOBE authors argue with exactly the opposite train of thought: the correlation shows that cultural peculiarities influence the national welfare; therefore the correlations of the differing dimensions are of special interest for researchers.

The objection of the maximisation of the number of countries studied instead of detailed analyses of single countries was met with the publication of the second GLOBE volume concerning the in-depth analysis of 25 countries by Chhokar, Brodbeck and House in 2008.

Due to the open publication of the compiled data and the number of researchers and research institutes involved, GLOBE could be expected to induce additional cultural research over the next decade. As its findings constitute a unique basis for country and (intercultural) leadership development their further inclusion into management theory and practice can be predicted.

2.6Citations & Notes

1 Hall, E.T. (1976). He uses instead the terms “hidden dimensions of unconscious culture” or “cultural/collective unconscious”.

2 Bennett, MJ. (1993)

3 Adapted from Bennett, M. J. (1998)

4 All of the following information in this chapter is taken from: Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). A more detailed and scientific description of the Hofstede framework could be found in Hofstede, G.H. (2006).

5 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), p. 6

6 Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), p. 7

7 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), p. 8

8 Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), p. 9

9 Hofstede, G.H. (2006), pp. 87-88

10 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 72-83

11 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 57-59

12 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), p. 65

13 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 117, 124

14 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 95-97

15 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 159, 170

16 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 141-143

17 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 203, 208, 217

18 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 192-194

19 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 243, 251

20 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 255-258

21 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977), pp. 23-32

22 Holden, N., & Burgess, M. (1994), p. 33

23 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 59, 95-96, 141, 193, 255-256 and Hofstede, G. J. (2001), pp. 256-257 (CVS)

24 Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Their research revealed the following clusters: Anglo, Arabic, Germanic, Latin American, Latin European, Near Eastern, Nordic and Far Eastern. The countries Brazil, India, Israel and Japan were considered as independent from others.

25 Based on Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 291, 297

26 Scores from Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010), pp. 282-285

27 Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), pp. 1-2

28 All following information was derived from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). This book is highly recommendable as it combines research and practical examples on doing business with different cultures. Also recommendable are the older books providing more insights into the practical relevance of the defined dilemmas, especially Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004); Trompenaars, F., & Woolliams, P. (2003); & Trompenaars, F., & Prud’ homme, P. (2004).

29 Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 8

30 Based on Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), pp. 33-34

31 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 56. Percentages for countries marked with “*” were derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015.

32 Based on Trompenaars, F. (2004, November 16), p. 12 (A9)

33 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 66. Percentages for countries marked with “*” derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015.

34 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 88. Percentages for countries marked with “*” were derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015.

35 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 109. Percentages for countries marked with “*” were derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015. For Japan (marked with #) please note that this figure is based probably on a cultural misunderstanding of concept, as Japanese people generally do not paint houses, preferring wooden houses anyway.

36 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 129. Percentages for countries marked with “*” were derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015.

37 Based on Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 156

38 Based on Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 170

39 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 158; for countries marked with “*” no percentage was made available.

40 Inspiring insights into the differentiation of clock time and event time cultures are provided in Levine, R. (1997).

41 Percentages from Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), p. 176. Percentages for countries marked with “*” were derived from the connected Trompenaars database, access usually granted via the website http://ridingthewavesofculture.com. Due to problems with the website, the scores were provided via email by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner/KPMG People & Change, 10.03.2015.

42 Based on Trompenaars, F. (16 November, 2004)

43 Based on Trompenaars, F., & Wooliams, P. (2003), p. 41

44 Details and examples concerning successful reconciliation processes are provided in Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012), pp. 247-261 and in Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004), pp. 267-294.

45 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). This volume is the basis for all following information about the GLOBE study.

46 Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2008)

47 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004), p. 15

48 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004), p. XV

49 Based on House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004), pp. 11-13

50 Based on House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004), p. 190

51 University of Wollongong (Ed.). (2007); Kutschker, M., & Schmid, S. (2011), pp. 731-734

52 Trompenaars, F. (2011, Jully 11)