Bus 430 D100 – Cross Cultural Management
Spring 2013
THEORY SESSION 3
DIVERGENT CULTURES
REVIEW OF CRITICAL REFLECTION
Assignment:
Review of Team 1’s Critical Reflection on A theory of cultural values and
some implications for work (Schwartz, 1999) and National culture and the
values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43
nations (Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996)
Course:
Bus 430 D100 – Cross Cultural Management
Instructor:
Rajiv Kozhikode
Date Submitted:
February 6, 2013
Team 2 Members:
Mohammed Al-Awlaqi (301150503)
Kelvin Lai (301110818)
Jacky Pan (301111056)
Sasha Vukovic (301124126)
Team 1’s critical reflection presents a relatively in-depth summary and analysis of such concepts
as bipolar dimensions of culture that can be accounted for by seven basic cultural values—
thoughtfully considering impacts of globalization and the ability of culture to change, while
integrating this well with additional articles. It offers a clear summary and begins to address
limitations, with a logical structure leading to the critical reflection. However, clear identification
of an overarching theme, application, or purpose of the articles is not explicitly stated; we have
identified opportunities to further develop and motivate even deeper, more interesting analysis.
In the analysis of both articles’ methodological limitations, we infer that Team 1 is largely
concerned with the robustness of conclusions arising from possibly non-representative or biased
samples. Certainly, it is valid to suggest that a single occupational group or demographic segment
cannot adequately represent a national culture; also, each individual exhibits variation as value
priorities are shaped not solely by prevailing national culture but also largely by one’s unique
experiences and personality. Still, we are concerned with Team 1’s unsourced generalizations of
differences in teacher-student roles between the East (“hierarchical and formal…teacherdependent”) and West (encouraging “freedom of expression and autonomy”). It seems fallacious
to critique Schwartz’s approach to systematically and empirically deduce culture-level value
types that compare national cultures by countering with one’s own preconceived opinions. And,
even if Team 1’s beliefs accurately characterize differences between East and West teacher roles,
does this not support Schwartz’s attempt to identify bipolar dimensions of cultural divergence
(e.g. hierarchy and conservatism vs. egalitarianism and autonomy)? The next logical step is for
Team 1 to suggest alternative approaches which may address their concerns. For instance, an
ideal alternative to the teacher/student sample approach is to conduct larger, random population
samples to ensure a representative sample of dominant national culture. Yet, recognize this is not
nearly as feasible as the authors’ approaches considering monetary, time and resource constraints.
AAAAIn the section Culture as Dynamic, Team 1 explores the importance of “historical
1
backgrounds and economic developments” in understanding a country’s culture; this implies each
country would have a divergent culture, as historical background and economic development are
unique. However, this appears to contradict the preceding paragraph’s example, regarding Japan
and West Germany’s similar cultural values despite drastically different heritages and levels of
economic development. The reason, according to Team 1, is globalization and modernization
converging their cultures. A couple of questions emerge: West Germany collapsed in 1990, was
globalization strong enough to converge cultures at the time? If culture is dynamic, what is the
point of using historical data? Perhaps Team 1 is suggesting that forces like globalization are
relatively more powerful in bringing divergent cultures closer together than factors such as
history or economic development are in keeping them apart—if so, clarification is necessary.
Our understanding is that cultural values have many implications on conducting business
internationally; thus, we narrow our interpretation to focus on the relationship between cultural
values and managing employees. Team 1 could consider that HR managers should be aware of
impacts of cultural values on work hours, rewards and compensation, and management styles.
First, in societies where work centrality is lower, one should accommodate employees’ needs. In
Saudi Arabia, a conservative society valuing religion, time is allocated for religious practice; so,
work hours may be modified compared to societies that value mastery (Schwartz). Second, to
compensate employees in a country that values intellectual and affective autonomy, managers
should focus on intrinsic rewards while conservative societies may prefer extrinsic rewards like
higher base salary (Schwartz). Caution, though, as individual preference may differ from the
dominant national culture—thus, understanding cultural values is necessary but not sufficient by
itself for success. Third, in hierarchical countries, effective managers provide direction and goals
while empowerment and decentralization are effective where autonomy dominates (Smith et al.).
It strikes us that it is worth exploring business consequences of disobeying such cultural norms in
certain nations, and also that organizational culture can be very heterogeneous even comparing
companies in the same country; it may be closer linked to industry than national culture.
2
References
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47. doi: 10.1111/j.14640597.1999.tb00047.x
Smith, P. B., & Dugan, S. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231-264. doi: 10.1177/0022022196272006
3