The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 404 Received June 1999 Revised December 2000 Accepted April 2001 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft Cultural dimensions of decision making: Denmark and France compared Jette Schramm-Nielsen Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark Keywords Decision making, National cultures, Denmark, France, Differentiation, Rationalization Abstract In spite of decades of focus on decision making and decades of research on crosscultural management, few authors have devoted attention to the combination of decision making and specific cultural settings. The focus of this paper is the decision-making processes in French and Danish companies. Results from empirical data indicate that there are clear differences in the ways decisions are arrived at in terms of how managers emphasize different phases of the decision-making process. The analysis also shows what happens when different stages become the responsibility of people in different roles within the organisation. In the analysis, the importance of decision rationality is discussed, and the different cultural styles are linked to the classical theories in decision making such as economic man, administrative man, and muddling through. Since these are found inadequate to characterize French and Danish actual behaviour, new models are suggested under the labels of emotional man and action man. Introduction Since the Second World War much literature has been devoted to the process of decision making, for instance Simon (1947), March and Simon (1958), Lindblom (1959), Cyert and March (1963), Mintzberg et al. (1976), Brunsson (1985), to mention a few classical examples, and the topic is a must in textbooks on management, for instance Mullins (1985), Hatch (1997). For a review on strategic decision-making literature, see for instance Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992). Of more recent date is the interest in comparative management originating in the path-breaking research of Haire et al. (1966), followed by Pugh and Hickson, the Aston studies, (1976), Hofstede (1984), Adler (1986), Lane (1989), Peterson (1993), and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) to highlight just a few of the more outstanding researchers. Most of these studies are quantitative studies, the most recent comprehensive questionnaire study being the GLOBE study, data collected in 1995, from which results begin to be published: Den Hartog et al. (1999) and Brodbeck et al. (2000). Qualitative research in comparative management has gained momentum in recent years, much more so in Europe than in the USA. Examples are Brunstein (1995), Joynt and Warner (1996), Usunier (1998), Schramm-Nielsen and Lawrence (1998), Lawrence and Edwards (2000). Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 6, 2001, pp. 404-423. # MCB University Press, 0268-3946 An earlier version of this article has been printed in Revue FrancËaise de Gestion, No. 128, MarchApril-May 2000, under the title ``Dimensions culturelles des prises de deÂcision. Une comparaison France-Danemark’’. Comparative management is necessarily concerned with the concept of Cultural culture, and some authors have elaborated theories and models that may serve dimensions of as guidelines for studies in comparative management research or decision making organisational culture. Examples would include Hofstede (1984), Schein (1985), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993), Sackmann (1997), Kuada and Gullestrup (1997), all of whom are Europeans, or of European descent. 405 However, there has not been much focus on decision making in a comparative management perspective, especially not based in qualitative research, questionnaire surveys being the dominant method (see Ronen, 1986). This is not meant to indicate that quantitative research is not valuable and important, but we would like to suggest that qualitative methods do offer deeper insight and are more likely to yield psychological explanations that help to understand the problems at hand. An exception of qualitative and comparative research in decision making is Sethi et al. (1984) on the differences between Japan and the USA, and one notable recent exception is d’Iribarne et al. (1998). This example is the more interesting as he reports on a case of interaction between French and Swedish managers and employees working on a joint project. The Danish and Swedish cultures being comparatively close, the d’Iribarne case will be referred to to support the results of the study to be discussed in the following. Other studies on decision making including a Scandinavian country are rare (Kreiner, 1976; Sùndergaard, 1990), and this text is therefore a contribution meant to fill some of the gap. At the same time there is a lack of concern with the cultural aspects of decision making in the classical theories, which present decision making as a universalist phenomenon, meaning that the principles of decision making processes and practices are universal, and that managers act much the same way in comparable situations in highly industrialized countries. We find this universalist attitude not only in theories of decision making, but also in connection with most other organisational issues (see Boyacigillar and Adler, 1991). The aim of this article is to evaluate and explain cultural differences in actual practice in the two cultural settings of Denmark and France. The two conceptual frameworks used are the decision-making process and decisionmaking models. Results indicate that there are clear differences in the ways decisions are arrived at in terms of how managers emphasise different phases of the decision-making process. The analysis also shows what happens when different stages of the process become the responsibility of people in different roles within the organisation. The paper will lead on to a discussion on decision rationality linked to the classical theories in decision making such as economic man, administrative man, and muddling through. It will then move to the different cultural styles of Frenchmen and Danes, and since the classical theories just mentioned are found inadequate when characterizing French and Danish actual behaviour, new models will be suggested under the labels of emotional man and action man. Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 406 Comparisons of decision-making practices are interesting because managers as well as employees will increasingly be involved in cooperation across borders, in multi-cultural teams, in mergers and acquisitions, in international and multinational corporations as well as in international organisations like the European Union (EU), World Trade Organisation (WTO), United Nations (UN), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), international aid and the like. We are also likely to experience increased mobility of managers within Europe and internationally. Knowledge and understanding of differences as those here put forward will be crucial to a more smooth cooperation between actors from different cultures. Methodology The empirical data explored in this article were collected in 1988/89. They are based on qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews in rather traditional production enterprises covering the following branches: electrical and electronic equipment, food, chemical industry, machinery, glass, furniture and transportation equipment. In terms of size, the Danish companies were small, medium- and large-sized (1-99, 100-499, 500< employees), and the French samples were medium- to large-sized companies. The French sample includes some of the largest companies in France, world leaders within their area of business. The objective was to examine the respective perceptions of Danish and French managers employed in foreign subsidiaries and working together, in order to evaluate and explain cultural differences, if any, in leadership style, in working methodology, in decision-making style and in social interaction. The formal criteria for the selection of companies were Danish companies operating in France with a Dane as top manager and vice versa for French companies in Denmark. The respondents were French and Danish managers and their two immediate subordinates, themselves managers or employees according to the size of the company, a total of 31 people in 12 companies, seven in France and five in Denmark. The top managers were foreign to the host country, and their subordinates were then indigenous to that country. We would like to emphasize this research design, since it has the advantage of the respondents’ double competence as informants, being representatives of their own culture and working on a daily basis with representatives of the other culture. It is also important to note that although the amount of host-country work experience varied, a substantial number of the respondents had prolonged contact with the culture in question (2-35 years). This means that most of the respondents had an extraordinary background for comparing the two cultures, giving them a solid basis for reflection, so that their statements pointed far beyond any superficial stereotyping. To researchers working with quantitative research methods, the number of respondents may seem small. However, it is recognized to be a fair and acceptable number in qualitative research and about the limit of the capacity of a one-person research project. On the other hand, and for the same reason, the Cultural study may well be considered an explorative study to be followed up by more dimensions of research in the area, and the present writer would welcome such follow-up decision making studies. Thus, the present text is in no way intended to be a full treatment of the complex problem of decision making in a cross-cultural and comparative perspective. 407 All interviews, which lasted between one and two hours each, were taperecorded, typed in extenso (about 700 pages) and content analysed by themes, the theme of decision making being one of them. A phenomenological and hermeneutic approach has been adopted for the description and the interpretation of the data. Analytically speaking, the themes and the elements studied have been linked into a conceptual coherence, which makes them more than the sum of their parts. Apart from the study mentioned above, the article will draw on evidence and contributions from a number of other sources in Danish, French, and English, to discuss the empirical findings. Before presenting our findings, some of the key concepts that will be referred to in the discussion below need to be defined. Concepts defined The concepts that need to be defined are: Rationality. Justification on grounds that are satisfactory to reason. For something to be rational it has to be within the scope of conscious, deliberate action or reflection (Elster, 1989, p. 7). Synonyms are: reasonable, sensible, sense-making, coherent, logical, Cartesian, and deductive, and antonyms are: empirical, inductive, irrational, passionate. Accidental decisions. Accidental decisions are characterized by being not fully intentional, but marked by intuition and possibly later defended by logical reasoning. Emotional man. A person who is impulsive and emotional in decision making, creatively irrational as opposed to consciously rational. Action man. A decision maker marked by pragmatic rationality based on experience and on induction from empirical findings. The decision-making process and rationality Textbooks on decision-making processes traditionally propose a model which takes the decision maker step-by-step through a series of stages from the moment a problem has been perceived until action has been taken to solve it. Figure 1 includes the phases proposed in the decision-making literature by a number of authors (Mintzberg et al., 1976; Bakka and Fivelsdal, 1988, p. 197; Jennings and Wattam, 1994, p. 10). There is supposed to be a certain linearity in the process, but it also typically loops back to earlier stages. Several authors have paid attention to different phases of the process. We will be concerned with stages 4 to 9, from ``Search for Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 408 Figure 1. The decision-making process alternatives’’ to ``Control’’, which are the phases where our study indicates cultural differences. Traditionally, decision making has been closely associated with the notion of rationality, this concept generally being considered positive for managerial action. Especially in France, decision makers are keen to emphasize the rational aspect of their thinking and actions, rationality being an ideal, often referred to with its French synonym ``Cartesianism’’ derived from the name Descartes, French philosopher of the early Enlightenment Era (1596-1650). Indeed it has become customary to consider Descartes as the very model of intellectual rigour and the founder of modern rationalism (Revel, 1995, p. 7). The Cartesian method consists of a few simple rules, the first of which is to find a starting point which is so evident that it is beyond doubt. The second rule is to go from the simplest elements to the more complex in a deductive and strictly controlled way without leaps. Finally, one should have a comprehensive overview of the problem, so as to make sure that all possibilities have been considered. Descartes’ ideal in science was the mathematical way of reasoning, and he rejected intuition and emotion as possible means of gaining insight. Examples of reference to Cartesianism and deduction abound in French Cultural texts in magazine and newspaper articles. More specifically examples here dimensions of might include Desjeux (1996, p. 45), French anthropologist, who states that decision making French philosophers prefer deduction to induction, likely a legacy from Descartes. Another example is d’Iribarne et al. (1998, pp. 89-115), who reports on a case where French participants in a joint project again and again stress 409 rational reasoning to explain the French point of view. Rationality and decision-making models The most comprehensive form of rational decision making has been called ``economic man’’, defined by March and Simon (1958, p. 158) as ``the rational man of economics and statistical decision theory’’. According to this model, the decision maker will decide on the basis of clear goals and the known consequences of all possible alternatives. Linking this to the nine-stage decision-making process, it means that this model would stress the stages 4: Search for alternatives, 5: Evaluation of alternatives, and 6: Choice of alternative. As early as 1958, March and Simon criticized the economic man model for not agreeing well ``with common-sense notions of rationality’’, and for making the above ``exceedingly important demands upon the choice-making mechanism’’ (1958, p. 158). Instead, they put forth another theory of rational choice which was labelled ``administrative man’’ (Simon, 1947). According to this theory the decision-maker will have ``a limited, approximate, simplified `model’ of the real situation’’, the elements of which will be ``the outcome of psychological and sociological processes’’. The decision maker, they claim, will look for a limited number of alternatives and have a more or less comprehensive knowledge of their consequences. In practice, the decisionmaker will most often choose from satisfactory alternatives (by Simon termed ``satisficing’’) something that is good enough in relation to goals and not try to find the optimal alternative. Linking this model to the decision-making process it means that administrative man would be concerned with the same three stages as economic man, but to a less stringent and comprehensive degree and arrive at stage 6: Choice of alternative without optimising. This model too came under attack for lack of realism, from among others Lindblom (1959) who suggested ``the science of muddling through’’ or ``disjointed incrementalism’’. His model may be summarized as follows: (1) The understanding of the problem at hand is limited to an approach similar to the prevailing one. (2) Instead of adapting solutions to goals, goals are chosen which suit the means at disposal. (3) Few alternatives are considered. (4) Goals and means are chosen simultaneously. (5) New goals are constantly discovered, and former goals reconsidered. Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 410 (6) The problem is seldom finally solved, but constantly reconsidered. (7) Decisions are more a flight from various evils than a movement towards a goal. (8) Few dimensions of consequences are considered. As will be seen this model has moved even farther away from the Cartesian ideal, i.e. the deductive and strictly controlled way without leaps. According to his model the decision maker would emphasize stage 6: Choice of alternative simultaneously with stage 5: Evaluation of alternatives, looking for only few alternatives, stage 4, and going back and forth over the stages 4, 5, and 6. The Danish researcher Enderud (1976, p. 128) described some decisionmaking situations which are characterized by unintentional and automatic decisions in which rationalization is subsequent to the ``decision’’, and where the decision makers will try to justify by logical reasoning a decision arrived at more or less accidentally. This model cannot be said to be rational in the Cartesian sense of the word, but Enderud argues that such decisions often go hand in hand with intuition and that intuition is not pure imagination, but more often than not the result of some prior knowledge and experience. (For more discussion of these concepts see for instance Agor (1986), David (1991) and Pettinger (1996). This model can thus be said to be one step further away from the muddling through model. The Enderud (1976) model we will call accidental decisions characterized by being not fully intentional, but marked by intuition and creativity and possibly later defended by logical reasoning. At least one other study (Frederickson, 1985) showed that executives combined rational analysis and intuition (from Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992)), and in the opinion of this writer, intuition may be a swift and effective solution to a complex problem. According to this model, focus would be on stage 6: Choice of alternative, and the process would be either backwards, or it would jump back to stage 1: Problem perception or 2: Problem identification and start the analysis only after having made the decision. If we place the above decision-making models on a continuum according to their degree of rationality-irrationality with their characteristics we get Figure 2. The cultural styles of Frenchmen and Danes The study here reported on, specifically inquired into the question of rationality and found that Frenchmen and Danes analysed problems and tasks differently. A Danish top manager in France offers this description: They [Danes and Frenchmen] do not analyse and synthetise the same way. The French tend to think that Danes are not thorough enough, and the Danes tend to think that the French are too complicated. At his desk, the Frenchman tends to keep on working on a case. He seems not to agree neither with his surroundings nor with himself. This means that when he has analysed a case and has come to a conclusion, then he would like to go over it once more. I think that Frenchmen think in a more synthetic way . . . and he has a tendency to say: ``well, yes, but what if it can still be done in another maybe smarter way’’. This means that in fact he is wasting time instead of making improvements. Another Danish top manager in France has this observation: I think the French people here are very rational in their way of thinking and reacting. Only their rationality may be different from in Denmark . . . It is a question of education, traditions and culture. Cultural dimensions of decision making 411 A third Danish top manager says: Yes, I think Frenchmen are rational. They probably consider more aspects (than the Danes) when they are about to decide something. A fourth Danish manager: Danes and Frenchmen certainly analyse problems differently. If we really have problems, then I prefer by far to analyse them with Danish technicians, because we[1] are very quick to get into the high pitch, imagine the great catastrophe, getting heated and all that. It is always exaggerated, where Danes can bring it down to a sensible level . . . Things quickly get very emotional here . . . A French respondent has this observation: The French are rational, yes, but this statement has to be graded. They are rational in their reasoning, but much more subjective in their actions and their reactions. A Danish respondent: They tend to be very impulsive, it is here and now . . . and then we (= they) reflect later on. It also seems to be a question of abstract reasoning as opposed to a more concrete, pragmatic way, as can be eloquently illustrated by the following quotation by a Danish manager: Yes, they work in a somewhat abstract way. I think that is quite a good way of putting it. I mean 2 + 2 makes 4, but I have the impression that Frenchmen are not always sure of that. It may be 4, but it might also be 4.2. Simply saying that it makes 4 seems not to be enough. It has to do with being concrete or not. Look, you must be able to tell whether this is possible or not. I think that is our greatest problem with the French. Germans are much more concrete. That thing there is round, isn’t it, we can agree on that. That other thing there is white, that one is black. The French will say, yes maybe. Figure 2. The continuum of rationality-irrationality and the decision-making models Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 412 These statements and others not quoted, all indicate that the French colleagues do analyse problems in a systematic way, looking for as many alternatives as possible and trying to evaluate them before coming to a conclusion and then go back to see whether there might be more possibilities to be considered, other ways of doing things. We may therefore say that the French have a predilection for logical analysis in accordance with the Cartesian ideal, which means that they will aim at using the deductive model represented by ``economic man’’. At the same time the respondents ± French as well as Danes ± also pointed to the fact that what seemed to be analytical rationalism was often coupled with emotion and impulse, the very opposite of cool, reasoned rationality. In order to try to comply with the rational ideal, the French sometimes carried out the exercise subsequently in order to defend the solution arrived at. Thus we would suggest that the French seem to be analytically rational and creatively irrational at the same time, and, as such, able to swing between two extremes. This figure is not represented in any of the existing classical models of decision making, and we would therefore suggest another concept, that of ``emotional man’’ to designate persons or reactions at the opposite extreme from pure rationality. Whether or not emotional decisions should be called irrational is well worth discussing. We might need to find a better word, but the word ``irrationality’’ is the antonym of ``rationality’’, still in the Cartesian sense, and we will therefore stay with that for the moment. Being emotional in decision making is not meant in any pejorative way; in some cases we may even find that emotions may provide quite a good basis for decisions (Brunsson, 1985), and Brunsson even argues that rational decision-making procedures are irrational in an action perspective (1985, p. 27). The point here is that, in the Cartesian sense of the word, rationality, emotions and impulse should be separated from the methodic and logically coherent analysis. The French do not, therefore, seem to comply entirely with the Cartesian ideal, and we may therefore be allowed to call it a myth, or at least an espoused model, and not necessarily a model in action. If we now turn to the Danish decision-making style as revealed by our data, we have seen already that the respondents stress that they analyse and work differently from the French. The following quotations may be illustrative. A French respondent: Danes are more pragmatic . . . The rationality of the Danes tends to be modulated by their actions and their knowledge of the practical side of things. A Danish top manager: When a Dane makes a report, it is less emotional, more down to earth; on the other hand . . ., the Danes are less engaged. The French are more creative, but less able to stick to the subject and get the report done . . . and get things done. A French respondent: Our Danish colleagues clearly work methodically and not in confusion as is often the case in France. Cultural dimensions of decision making A Danish top manager: The main difference is at the level of ideas. If for instance we are to market a new product, the Danes will say after a short meeting: ``It must be done in such and such a way. We have made a market analysis, the product has been examined, it is ok, and it can be sold for such and such a price. Let us get started.’’ All that is very professional. Then the French will tend to respond: ``Yes, well that may be, but have you considered this other way of doing it . . . If we did it that way, would it not be even better?’’ The Danes get terribly irritated thinking that it is a waste of time. The French would like to go over it once more . . . The French would like to have eight more meetings about it, and the Danes get frustrated. The French prefer to wait three more months to be sure that we have considered everything and in order not to make mistakes. Which/who of them is rational and which/who is not, I cannot say. Thus the Danes tend to conclude on the basis of a short meeting bringing into the discussion concrete data and past experience and arguing for a specific action to be taken. Another Danish top manager in France: You see, we[2] are good at the level of ideas, and I think that the Danish touch means that the company as such is fairly good at carrying out ideas . . . When we look at French companies in general . . . they are not smart, when it comes to implementing things. We have difficulties organising things. To those already cited above, these quotations add a picture of pragmatic Danes wanting to get down to action, to start operation, they are better than the French at organising, better at implementation, better at the practical side of the process, and are shown to use less time looking for alternatives and evaluating them. We have noted already that Danes tend to use less time than the French in analysing according to the stringent, rational principles which characterized the Cartesian ideal. The Danes seem to consider a limited number of alternatives since they spend less time at stage 4, ``Search for alternatives’’, and therefore also must live with less comprehensive knowledge of their consequences. Further, they seem to understand the problem at hand in the light of previous experience, or, perhaps, as suggested by Mintzberg et al. (1976) follow various routines. They adapt goals to the means at hand rather than the opposite, since they are primarily concerned with finding realistic, pragmatic and workable solutions. In the terminology of Simon (1947), they use ``satisficing’’ and not ``optimizing’’ in relation to goals. As the Danes tend to use an inductive procedure, they arrive sooner at stage 6, ``Choice of alternative’’. Where then could we place Danish style decision making? Compared with the French, the Danish decision-making style is nearer to the ``administrative man’’ model with its limited rationality, and even to ``muddling through’’ where, to quote Lindblom (1959), ``the understanding of the problem at hand is limited to an approach similar to the prevailing one’’, 413 Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 414 where ``goals are chosen to suit the means at disposal’’, and ``few alternatives are considered’’. However, Danes do not entirely fit those two models either. As for the model of ``administrative man’’, if they tend to ``satisfice’’ in the terminology of Simon and not ``optimize’’ in relation to goals and to ``accept limited insight’’, I would go so far as to suggest that they do not aim at being very analytical, but rather at being realistic. As for the ``muddling through’’ model, arguments which go against it as characterizing the Danish style would include points 5, 6, 7, and 8 mentioned in the description of the ``muddling through’’ model: (5) New goals are constantly discovered, and former goals reconsidered. (6) The problem is seldom finally solved, but constantly reconsidered. (7) Decisions are more a flight from various evils than a movement towards a goal. (8) Few dimensions of consequences are considered. In the Danish context new goals are normally not constantly discovered, and former goals reconsidered; on the contrary, goals are relatively constant, and problems are solved, and not ``constantly reconsidered’’ (point 6). It cannot be confirmed either that decisions in the Danish style are generally ``more a flight from various evils than a movement towards a goal’’ (point 7). Finally, it cannot be confirmed that ``few dimensions of consequences are considered’’ (point 8). Inspired by Swedish theorist Nils Brunsson (1985, pp. 25-7), who has suggested the concept of ``action rationality’’ as an alternative to ``decision rationality’’, thereby shifting the focus from cognition to action, our suggestion would be to supplement the model of the continuum of rationality and the decision-making models with an action man model, which would imply pragmatic rationality based on experience and on induction from empirical findings. This will give us Figure 3, in which action man and emotional man have been added as models: Figure 3. The continuum of rationality-irrationality, the decision-making models and cultural patterns We can now see that Frenchmen and Danes have different patterns of preferred Cultural decision-making styles, and that each of them have strengths in different areas. dimensions of The figure reflects six different ways of arriving at decisions, where at the decision making left side the person would use just reason, logic and deduction, the example of French philosophers was given earlier in the text; in the next positions decisions are based on routine or past experience, and the right side represents 415 the more creative and emotional spectrum of decision making. The figure says nothing about the quality of the decisions that might be arrived at by using one or another of the possibilities described here. The question of quality is altogether another discussion, but to our mind they are all a priori workable methods, and each of them may yield good results. It all depends on the context at hand. Although we have made a point of documenting different decision-making styles, it has to be conceded that they are of course to a certain extent generalisations. The decision-making process revisited Reverting to the decision-making process we can now plot in the Danes and the French at different stages according to which they emphasize most in practice (see Figure 4). Discussion In the following we will discuss the above in light of supportive evidence from other authors and the experience of the present writer. We have seen that the French tend to use much time at the stages 4 and 5 of the decision-making process, Search for alternatives and Evaluation of alternatives, and we argued that this could be a predilection for logical analysis Figure 4. The decision-making process Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 416 in accordance with the Cartesian ideal. This point is supported by the case described by d’Iribarne et al. (1998, p. 98) reporting on a joint project between a French and a Swedish company, in which expressions like ``strict logical arguments’’, ``in the name of reason’’, ``in accordance with reason’’, ``abiding by reason’’, ``rational argumentation’’ keep being used to explain the French positions[3]. However, there might also be another explanation, namely that those (middle managers) who analyse and prepare the case have to present their results to their superior, who will normally make the decision. The middle manager or subordinate depends entirely on his/her superior for recognition, promotion and other important aspects of his/her working life (SchrammNielsen and Hjort, 1996), and the subordinate will consequently do his or her utmost to look good in the eyes of the superior, which means not only having considered all possible alternatives, but also showing intellectual brilliance in terms of analysis. In the d’Iribarne case we find the expression ``show one’s analytic abilities’’[4]. This situation is evidently also a reflection of the power distance that has been documented by Hofstede (1984) and many other subsequent studies, e.g. Schramm-Nielsen (1993) and Sùndergaard (1994). The respondents in the study here reported on also pointed to the fact that French managers tended to look for new, out of the ordinary and individualistic solutions, and on this point the following explanations could be offered. The first is that this may reflect customer wishes since customers in France often do not just accept standardized solutions, but also want to have their personal imprint on the final result. A second explanation could be that during school socialization, French pupils are urged to demonstrate their intellectual capabilities. At school, as elsewhere in French society, this is what really counts and what gives prestige. In their book, Management in France, Barsoux and Lawrence state (1990, p. 30): A longstanding feature of French society is the high premium it places on intellect. Where America extols money, West Germany work and Great Britain blood, France has nailed its flag to the post of cleverness. A third explanation could be that this is also an opportunity for the (middle) manager to compete with colleagues precisely by showing his intellect through unusual and individualistic proposals for solutions, which might set him apart from competitors. Such a situation is nothing but the continuation of a lifelong competitive context starting in preschool classes. What is more, as is generally accepted, in France intellectualism is also linked to the abstract, to concepts, and to mastering mathematics, the most abstract of disciplines, the mastery of which is considered the ultimate proof of intelligence. The French researchers Alain and Philippe d’Iribarne (d’Iribarne and d’Iribarne, 1987, p. 45) offer the following explanation of this phenomenon, an explanation which points to a deeply ingrained structure. In French society there is a long tradition for ranking, and intellectual activity is no exception. In consequence, professions and departments are ranked according to the degree of Cultural dimensions of To give some examples from various writers, finance is more noble than decision making abstraction they may represent. The more they require theoretical knowledge and abstract treatment, the more noble they are. production (Barsoux and Lawrence 1990, p. 69), maintenance more noble than production (d’Iribarne, 1987, p. 47), an electrician has more prestige than a mechanic (d’Iribarne and d’Iribarne, 1987, p. 44), and among engineers technology is considered more prestigious than production (Lane, 1989, p. 100). This distinction, according to the amount of abstraction and theoretical knowledge required, says d’Iribarne (1989, p. 41), recalls the distinction between the spiritual and the secular professions of earlier centuries. D’Iribarne, who is himself an engineer, asks polemically what could be more noble than ``pure’’ mathematics, i.e. mathematics which has no practical purpose or direct application. The nearer one is to basic science, and consequently the further away from applied science, the higher one’s standing on the ladder of intelligence. The most prestigious school of engineers in France, EÂcole Polytechnique, prides itself on not dealing with technique at all (d’Iribarne and d’Iribarne, 1987, p. 45). Let us now turn to stage 6 in the decision-making model, the ``Choice of alternative’’. The study showed that this is where the French superior steps in, since decision-making authority is seldom delegated to the people who search for alternatives and evaluate them. In the d’Iribarne case we find the unequivocal statement that ``decisions are taken by the heads of departments’’[5]. A simplification would be to say that (middle) managers prepare the case, look for alternative solutions including their evaluation, while their superiors make the decisions and lower level subordinates implement them. This means that a decision does not necessarily reflect the preferences of those who are to carry out the instructions, and lack of commitment and motivation on their part may be a barrier to optimizing implementation. It was also indicated in the study, as seen from the quotations, that the French often have problems in giving their ideas substance and implementing them. This could be explained by the fact that, in the French context, implementation is generally not considered ``noble’’ work, according to the d’Iribarne terminology. That part is considered as the boring, ``secular’’, practical work, which does not earn prestige and which people therefore prefer to leave to lower levels. It could of course be discussed whether it is a strong or a weak point that the superior is the decision maker and not the people who prepare the case. If we look at it from a result and efficiency-oriented perspective as would a Dane, it seems rather to be a weak point, but one might also argue that the superior is in a better position to judge being the one who has more information than lower levels. In most cases this would be the situation in a French context. However, the French have one more strong point, which is ``Control’’ stage 9. Indeed, compared to Danish management, French control is extremely tight at all levels (Schramm-Nielsen, 1993), and this will obviously compensate for lack of commitment on the part of implementors. 417 Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 418 Attempting to explain Danish decision-making style, we would first suggest that if Danes tend to use less time than the French in analysing according to the stringent, almost mechanical, rational principles which characterized the Cartesian ideal, it is not that they are unable to do that, but they tend to look at the problem-solving process as a whole, the aim of which is to reach a workable solution. In the same vein, d’Iribarne et al. (1998) report that the Swedish looked to ``proven solutions’’ instead of trying to optimize. Second, since the Danes tend to use an inductive procedure, they have the advantage of arriving sooner at stage 6, ``Choice of alternative’’. An additional point is that in the Danish context, not only is decision making often delegated to the people concerned with the problem, but the same people will often also find themselves responsible for implementation. These important points mean that the Danes will be able to arrive sooner at stage 7, ``Start of operation’’, and tend to choose a solution which they know for certain that they can handle. Another consequence of this is that there will be greater loyalty towards ``Implementation’’, stage 8, or, as stated by Brunsson (1985, p. 22): the stronger the expectations, the motivations and the commitment incorporated in the decision, the greater the strength of the decision as a basis for action. Where Danes seem to have a problem compared to the French decision-making style, is in ``Control’’, stage 9, due to the principle of ``responsible autonomy’’ (Schramm-Nielsen, 1993). By this expression is meant that people are generally given a great amount of leeway in terms of autonomy in decision making within their own sphere of work, and at the same time they are expected to live up to a similar level of responsibility for actions taken. One implication of this is that they are supposed not to need to be controlled, and a further implication is that control is seen very negatively as a sign of lack of confidence in the person(s) who might be subject to control[6]. Two further and related points should be made here. The first is that Danes are judged more on their cooperative abilities than on individual performance. The second is that they are also judged on results obtained rather than on brilliantly intelligent, but perhaps less workable ideas (Fivelsdal and SchrammNielsen, 1993). The literature offers practically no other comparative studies of Danes in decision-making situations, and one therefore has to resort to other sources for verification. One such source might be Danish textbooks on organisational theory. It is interesting to see that as for normative solutions, Danish authors all stress the pragmatic and realistic, instead of the ideally rational and analytical decisions (Enderud, 1976; Junge-Jensen and Ry Nielsen, 1978; Bakka and Fivelsdal, 1988; Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993). Holt Larsen (1987), a Danish academic, also states that generally Danes do not start by defining formal goals, but by looking at the resources and means at hand. To push the point further, it is important to note that in Denmark there is much interest in ``action learning’’, which takes as a starting point what people, Cultural decision makers, actually do (Holt Larsen, 1990). Again, pragmatic approaches dimensions of seem to be more appealing to Danes than ideals. decision making Being a believer in the effects of socialization, we would suggest that this pragmatic rationality is one of the outcomes of socialization in the Danish educational institutions, where pupils are not much encouraged to demonstrate 419 intellectualism and analytical abilities. On the contrary, what is demanded of them is more often functionalism, pragmatism and understanding of coherence (Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993; Schramm-Nielsen and Hjort, 1996). An interesting question is how top managers and lower level managers/ employees adapted to the situations arising from the encounter of the two cultures with different power distances. The study showed several instances of French top managers in Denmark or their headquarters in France complaining about Danish lower level managers delegating too much decision power to employees (see Figure 4, stages 6, 7 and 8), and about not taking control seriously enough (stage 9). The Danes on their part found the control mechanisms and procedures overwhelming and unnecessary, believing that people could be trusted to do their best and to be capable of assessing the situation. In France, Danish top managers reported that once their French lower level managers understood the scope of decision-making manoeuvre delegated to them, they reacted with great enthusiasm and commitment, and it had an extremely positive effect on performance. However, not all French employees appreciated the idea of accepting responsibility. Some of the Danish top managers in France ± especially old timers ± had accepted the role of controlling authority, while others tried to make their subordinates understand that they were expected to be self-controlling and not look to the superior to check their work. Whether or not subordinates in a high power distance culture can be trusted enough to be empowered, is of course a delicate question that has to be considered in each case. Conclusion This paper set out with the establishment of the fact that the dominant literature on decision making has so far been universalistic and has generally not treated the subject in the light of different cultures. We have demonstrated that when we compare the French and Danish practices, and relate them to the decision-making process and the classical theories of decision making and problem solving, we find that they fit into different patterns according to what is considered important in relation to the desired outcome. It has also been shown that the French decision style may be characterized by rationality on the one hand, inasmuch as there is a thorough search for alternatives, but also by emotion and impulse on the other hand, which is clearly prohibited by the rational ideal, and which point to the opposite end of Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 420 the continuum of rationality-irrationality. For this last mentioned mode of decision making the label ``emotional man’’ is suggested to supplement the classical models of economic man, administrative man, muddling through, etc. Owing to an apparently traditional division of labour into intellectual and practical work, into thinking and doing, the French managers are less oriented towards operation and implementation, which will typically be left to lower levels in the hierarchy. This fact, however, is counterbalanced by a very tight control at all levels. The Danish decision makers have other ideals. In decision making most Danes tend not to look for many alternatives and to use ``satisficing’’ instead of optimizing, thereby accepting limited rationality. However, the Danes do not quite fit the description of ``administrative man’’, nor indeed the ``muddling through’’ model. Where the French aim at showing intellect and creativity, the Danes aim at being pragmatic, realistic and result oriented, including the phase of implementation. Their weak point is probably ``control’’ due to the principle of ``responsible autonomy’’. Since none of the existing classical models cover the Danish decision-making style, a new model called ``action man’’, typified by pragmatic result-oriented rationality, is suggested. It has also been shown that Danes and Frenchmen tend to emphasize different stages of the decision-making process according to the hierarchical context that they are part of and to which they have to conform. Avenues for further research An obvious question arising from this research is how and how far the results apply to situations other than those here reported on, and what might be the limitations of the study. For one thing data are admittedly not recent (dating from 1988-89). However, in this connection that is not a very crucial point, since cultural patterns of this nature change extremely slowly; this will have been amply demonstrated by the legacy from Descartes, seventeenth century French philosopher. Another point of critique might be that the number of respondents in the study reported on are relatively small. We believe that studies of different cultures in decision-making processes would be particularly timely, and we would welcome more research and more discussion on the cultural aspects of decision making. Whether or not decision making can be delegated to lower levels and whether the actors in the different levels in the hierarchy are willing to delegate and are respectively prepared to live up to the responsibility is at the very core of the concept of empowerment being discussed in the current theoretical literature. Finally, it would also be interesting to have documentation of decisionmaking situations in other industries than those represented in the study here reported on, especially we would welcome data from the service sector, which forms the major part of economic activity in industrialized countries. Notes 1. This Danish respondent, an old-timer in France, identifies with the French. 2. A long-timer in France, he identifies with the French. 3. In French: la rigueur logique de l’argumentation, au nom de la raison, conforme aÁ la raison, alleÂgeance aÁ la raison, une argumentation rationelle. 4. In French: montrer sa capacite d’analyse. 5. In French: Les deÂcisions sont prises par les responsables des deÂpartements. 6. It should be added that this relates mainly to the individual level. At the business level, for instance, budgeting, finance, stock, sales etc., there is general control. References Adler, N.J. (1986), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Kent Publishing/ Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Agor, W. (1986), ``How top executives use their intuition to make decisions’’, Business Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 1, January-February, p. 6. Bakka, J.F. and Fivelsdal, E. (1988), Organisationsteori, Struktur, Kultur, Processer, Handelshùjskolens Forlag/Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck, Copenhagen (reprinted in 1992). Barsoux, J-L. and Lawrence, P. (1990), Management in France, Cassell, London. Boyacigillar, N.A. and Adler, N.J. (1991), ``The parochial Dinosaur: organisational science in a global context’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-90. Brodbeck, F.C. et al. (2000), ``Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries’’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 1-29. Brunsson, N. (1985), Irrational Organisation. Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change, John Wiley R Sons, Chichester. Brunstein, I. (Ed.) (1995), Human Resource Management in Western Europe, de Gruyter, Berlin. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. David, F.R. (1991), Strategic Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Den Hartog, D.N. et al. (1999), ``Culture specific and cross-culturally generalisable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’’, Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier Science Inc., Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56. Desjeux, D. (1996), ``Scales of observation. A micro-sociological epistemology of social science practice’’, Visual Sociology, International Visual Sociology Association, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45-55. d’Iribarne, A. and d’Iribarne, P. (1987), ``Nouvelles technologies et culture francËaise: Le mariage du noble et du vil’’, Revue FrancËaise de Gestion, September/October. d’Iribarne, P. (1989), La Logique de l’Honneur, Seuil, Paris. d’Iribarne, P., Henry, A., Segal, J-P., Chevrier, S. and Globokar, T. (1998), Cultures et Mondialisation. Ge rer par-dela les FrontieÁ res, Editions du Seuil, Paris. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Zbaracki, M.J. (1992), ``Strategic decision making’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 17-37. Elster, J. (1989), Solomonic Judgements, Studies in the Limitations of Rationality, Cambridge University Press and la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Enderud, H. (1976), Beslutninger i Organisationer, Fremad, Copenhagen. Cultural dimensions of decision making 421 Journal of Managerial Psychology 16,6 Fivelsdal, E. and Schramm-Nielsen, J. (1993), ``Egalitarianism at work: management in Denmark’’, in Hickson, D.J. (Ed.), Management in Western Europe, de Gruyter, Berlin. 422 Hatch, M.J. (1997), Organization Theory. Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Frederickson, J.W. (1985), ``Effects of decision motive and organizational performance level on strategic decision processes’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 821-43. Haire, M. Ghiselli, E.E. and Porter, L.W. (1966), Managerial Thinking: An International Study, John Wiley, London. Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, London. Holt Larsen, H. (1987), ``Made in Scandinavia’’, Bùrsen (Danish Newspaper), 6 May. Holt Larsen, H. (1990), Lederudvikling paÊ jobbet, Valmuen, Copenhagen. Jennings, D. and Wattam, S. (1994), Decision Making. An Integrated Approach, Pitman, London. Joynt, P. and Warner, M. (Eds) (1996), Managing across Cultures, Issues and Perspectives, International Thomson, London. Junge-Jensen, F. and Ry Nielsen, J.C. (Eds) (1978), Klassisk Organisationsteori, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen. Kreiner, K. (1976), ``Ideology and management in a garbage can situation’’, in March, J.G. and Olson, J.P. (Eds), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, pp. 156-73. Kuada, J. and Gullestrup, H. (1997), ``Cultural categories and profiles: a framework for studying individuals’ behaviour in organizations’’, in Intercultural Communication and Changing National Identities, elected Papers Presented at the Nordic Network for Intercultural Communication, IV Annual Symposium, Tartu Estonia. Lane, C. (1989), Management and Labour in Europe, Edward Elgar, London. Lawrence, P. and Edwards, V. (2000), Management in Western Europe, Macmillan Business, London. Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ``The science of muddling through’’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, Spring, pp. 79-88. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Blackwell Business, Oxford (reprinted in 1993 and 1994). Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Theoret, A. (1976), ``The structure of unstructured decision processes’’, in Administrative Science Quarterly, June, pp. 246-75. Mullins, L.J. (1985), Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pitman Publishing, London (reprinted in 1993). Peterson, R.B. (1993), Managers and National Culture ± A Global Perspective, Quorum, London. Pettinger, R. (1996), Introduction to Organisational Behaviour, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Pugh, D.S. and Hickson, D.J. (1976), Organizational Structure in its Context: The Aston Programme, Gower Publishing, London. Revel, J.-F. (1995), ``Descartes inutile et incertain’’, in Descartes Discours de la MeÂthode, Librairie GeÂneÂrale FrancËaise 1973, Vol. 2, Paris. Ronen, S. (1986), Comparative and Multinational Management, John Wiley R Sons, New York, NY. Sackmann, S.A. (Ed.) (1997), Cultural Complexity in Organizations. Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, London. Schramm-Nielsen, J. (1993), Dansk fransk samarbejde i erhvervsvirksomheder, Copenhagen Business School, PhD dissertation. Schramm-Nielsen, J. and Hjort, K.E. (1996), Velock Denmark A/S, Interkulturel erhvervskommunikation, Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Schramm-Nielsen, J. and Lawrence, P. (1998), ``Scandinavian management. A cultural homogeneity beyond the nation state’’, in Entreprises et Histoire, Editions ESKA, Paris, No. 18, pp. 7-21. Sethi, S.P., Namiki, N. and Swanson, C. (1984), The False Promise of the Japanese Miracle, Pitman, Boston, MA. Simon, H.A. (1947), Administrative Behavior, New York, NY. Sùndergaard, M. (1990), ``PaÊ sporet af den nationale kulturs rolle i praksis’’, Organisatoriske Ê rsskrift, pp. 199-209. Fragmenter, A Sùndergaard, M. (1994), ``Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications’’, Organization Studies, de Gruyter, Berlin, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 447-56. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London (reprinted in 1997). Usunier, J.-C. (1998), International and Cross-Cultural Management Research, Sage, London. Cultural dimensions of decision making 423
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz