Dwumiesięcznik "Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi" 6/2003.
Powielanie, przedrukowywanie oraz rozpowszechnianie bez wiedzy i zgody Redakcji ZZL zabronione.
Habte G. Woldu*, Malgorzata K. Woldu**
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working
for Organisations of Similar Functions
The Case of the United States, Poland, Russia, Mexico, and India
The study is an exploration of cultural differences among five different socioeconomic background countries and among individual employees working in three
functionally comparable organizations. The analysis evolves through two phases of
study that reflect cross-country and cross-organizational comparison. The paper
hypothesizes that while there are cultural differences among countries, there
should be strong cultural convergence among employees working for professional
and technical oriented organizations. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that cultural
differences can be attributed to the countries’ socioeconomic and political orientation. The outcome of the study shows that there are visible cross-country cultural
differences and limited cultural convergence within organizations.
Literature review
Globalization
Habte
Cultural
G.Similarities
Woldu,
ofMalgorzata
business,
among Employees
K.
as Woldu
evidenced
Working
by for
liberalization
Organisations...
of economic philosophy and
economic integration on almost all continents has led to increased recognition of
intercultural competence as a critical success factor for world class firms (Adler 1997;
Trompenaars, 1994; Cox, 1994; Laurent, 1983). On the other hand, many studies have
shown that national, ethnic, regional, organizational, and professional cultural differences continue to exist among nations (Huang and Van de Vliert, 2003; Erez and Earley,
1993). In response to these changes and heightened interest within the business community, research in cross-cultural management has increased its scope; the critical and primary goal is to enhance the effectiveness of managers who must now lead an increasingly
diverse workforce that demonstrates individual values, which are heavily affected by
* Habte G. Woldu jest profesorem w School of Management, University of Texas w Dallas
** Ma³gorzata K. Woldu jest wyk³adowc¹ w Collin Country Community College, Plano, Texas
56
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
the societal or cultural system within which she or he is raised (Brewster & Scullion, 2001;
Hofstede, 1994; Hall, 1976). Therefore, the next important issue researchers need to examine will be whether employees who work for similar organizations, regardless of their
national origins, are converging culturally as indicated by Child (1981), Trompenaars,
(1994) and Hoecklin (1995).
The need for understanding the behavior of organizations at a global level has increased (Ford and Richardson 1994); as a result, the need for empirical studies of the behavior of individuals associated with such organizations should be conducted in an international context (Sethi and Steindlmeier, 1993). Given the assumption that values are
viewed as a reflection of societies’ cultures (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), the behavior of individuals working in any organization over a certain period of time is expected
to manifest the objectives of an organization. With this assumption in mind, the empirical
research conducted in this paper, which is conducted by analyzing individual employees’
responses, is examining and indirectly dealing with organizational behavior.
The cultural attitudes of employees in similar organizations in the following countries
were studied:
Two former communist countries (Russia and Poland), two industrializing and
emerging-developing countries, (India and Mexico), and a highly developed country (the
United States of America); the organizations, which are central focus of our assessment,
are: professional, technical, and social service organizations.
In this paper, organizational culture is measured by how the employees, who are with
the organization for at least two years, manifest their cultural behavior as measured by 11
cultural dimensions (see Table 1 for definition).
Table 1. Cultural Orientations and Dimensions*
I. Activity
Doing: People should continually engage in activity to accomplish tangible tasks.
Thinking: People should consider all aspects of a situation carefully and rationally before
taking action.
Being: People should be spontaneous and do everything in its own time.
II. Relation to broad environment
Mastery: We should control, direct, and change the environment around us.
Subjugation: We should not try to change the basic direction of the broader environment
around us and we should allow ourselves to be influenced by a larger natural or
supernatural element.
Harmony: We should strive to maintain a balance among the elements of the environment,
including ourselves.
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
57
III. Relationships among people
Individual: Our primary responsibility is to and for ourselves as individuals, and next for
our immediate families.
Collective: Our primary responsibility is to and for a larger extended group of people, such
as an extended family or society.
Hierarchical: Power and responsibility are naturally unequally distributed throughout
society; those higher in the hierarchy have power over and responsibility for those lower.
IV. Nature of humans
Good/Evil: The basic nature of people is essentially good (lower score) or evil
(higher score).
Changeable/Unchangeable: The basic nature of humans is changeable (higher score) from
good to evil or vice versa, or not changeable (lower score).
* Adopted from Kluckholn and Strodtbeck (1961), by Maznevski, M (1995).
Table 2. Sample Demographics
India
N
Total
Mexico
%
555
N
Poland
%
220
N
USA
Russia
%
378
N
%
341
N
%
578
Female
200
36
113
51
186
49
200
59
284
49
Professional
Org.
230
41
45
20
100
26
64
19
239
41
Technical Org. 170
31
69
31
115
30
105
31
88
15
Service Org.
151
27
85
38
124
33
152
45
237
41
Education
(³18 years)
435
78
147
68
199
53
185
54
436
75
Background of the countries involved in the study
The countries selected in this study are diverse in their socioeconomic makeup. The
United States of America represents a matured market; Poland and Russia represent
emerging and converging economies, while India is an example of a growing and industrializing developing country. Despite the histories of forbidding or nationalizing foreign investments of many of these countries until recently, many investors are very willing to invest in such countries if there are stable and have transparent governmental-business policies and practices. However, Barry (1995), Suutari (1998), and Kostera (1995) indicate
that unless systematic research is conducted, any investment in a politically volatile Russia or even in the highly promoted East European countries might lead to premature
58
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
business failures or to frustration n the part of Western expatriates who are not familiar
with the cultural and political landscape of these new territories. In fact, there are more
failures than successes in the joint ventures between Western and Eastern partners, especially in the case of Russia (Barry, 1995). Although the reasons for investor nervousness
are many and complex (Woldu and Guo, 1999), it is assumed that culture-related risks
are very crucial for business failures (Suutari, 1998; Murrell 1993; Tung, 1987). The
experiences of countries such as Poland and Russia in the current stages of economic
transformation show that there is a pressing need for a continuous cultural study.
Although every East European country has had its own specific history, many assume that
the communist system might have created a culture, which is commonly experienced in
most ex-Soviet satellite states (Lucas, 1998; Kostera, 1995). However, categorizing all
ex-Soviet bloc cultures as one East European culture and lumping all developing countries as one cultural package or the assumption that most Western countries manifest
certain similar patterns of culture has been seen as problematic (Hofstede, 1983 and
1991; Laurent 1983.; Trompenaars 1994; Woldu & Fitzpatrick 1998). A cultural comparative study conducted on Poland and Russia demonstrates the presence of cultural
differences between the national cultures of the two nations as well among certain demographic groups within both countries (Woldu & Biederman 1999). Studies conducted by
Hofstede (1983), Laurent, (1983) and Trompenaars (1994) did plausible work in finding
common threads that tie (cluster) countries together by cultural similarities; such an approach serves as a tool in understanding the common cultural traits of the general population, which is useful for a quick cultural reference. However, such a general approach
may not necessarily always be adequate in identifying the detailed cultural differences
that appear at the level of professional and organizational levels (Woldu and Guo, 1999).
In order to bridge the two needs that provide a complete picture of cultural similarities
and difference among the five countries, this study conducts cultural analysis in two
phases; phase one deals with cultural analysis at a national level while phase two examines
cultural differences and overlapping at organizational level.
Development of hypotheses
Assuming that individual values are affected by national cultural beliefs (Hofstede, 1983;
Adler, 1983 and 1997), the study investigates cross-county cultural differences in its
phase one approach.
Although national culture is the most important factor in explaining cultural variations (Hofstede, 1983; Laurent, 1983), it is clear that professional cultures have some
measurable impacts on how individuals who work for specific organizations with specific objectives and goals develop their own value system. These values, according to
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
59
Trompenaars (1994), will create cultural overlap in cross-country cultural maps. On the
other hand, it is believed that organizations might show cultural convergence or overlap
in technical operation. However, according to Hofstede (1983); Adler (1983) and
Laurent (1983), organizations show little convergence in the attitude of their human resources, including executive managers. Likewise, as multinational and global companies
enter the eastern bloc and the emerging markets of developing economies, it is assumed
that this pattern will continue to appear (Sinha and Sinha, 1990). Interestingly, whilst
there have been a considerable number of studies conducted on the impact of cultural
factors on individual work behaviors, such studies have tended to focus on the cultural
orientations of individuals within a single national context. Surprisingly, although the
trends towards globalization of businesses have necessitated the cross movement of human resources in different parts of the world (see Lamb, 2000; Woldu and Robbins,
2000), only a limited number of studies has examined the impact of the value system of
single country nationals in different socio-cultural environments.
In order to examine the above arguments, the following exploratory hypotheses are
suggested:
H1: Every country has its own historical heritage which is uniquely manifested in its
citizen’s value system; therefore, all the nations represented in this study will culturally
differ from one another.
Studies in cross-cultural psychology have argued that values, norms, behaviors, and
general world views are shaped by ones’ socialization and training (Hofstede, 1991;
Tung, 1987), and by the degree of social pressure on conformity (e.g. Huang and Harris,
1973). These findings have motivated researchers to suggest that due to the unique
socialization process, individuals of a particular nation or region are collectively programmed and share a common understanding (e.g., Hofstede, 1991 and 1993). Such
socialization is seen as contributing to the development of an individual’s basic assumptions and value orientation system, leading to a strengthening of their basic, taken-for-granted underlying assumptions (Schein, 1985). This assumption allows us to hypothesize that:
H2: The capitalist and communist ideologies had indoctrinated their respective citizens
to view things according to the core ideas of the respective systems, therefore the United
States, as a symbol of the capitalist system, will culturally differ from the countries included in the study.
India and Mexico have recently become global players. Their relationship with the
West, specifically with North America, has significantly increased. India is best characterized as a mosaic of diverse languages, cultures, religions, and people of different social or-
60
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
igins at different points of time in the past. These diversities are reflected in patterns of
life, styles of living, land tenure systems, occupational pursuits, as well as inheritance and
succession rules (Sharma, 1984). Indeed, a number of commentators have presented interesting dimensions to conceptualizing the behavioral aspects of the Indian culture.
Kennedy (1966) and Sinha (1990) emphasize the “tender mindedness” of Indians, which
stands against taking bold decisions. On the basis of Hofstede’s (1991) four initial cultural dimensions, Kanungo and Mendonca (1994) have shown significant cultural differences between India and Western countries. India stands relatively high on uncertainty
avoidance and power distance, and relatively low on individualism and masculinity dimensions. Relatively high uncertainty avoidance implies an unwillingness to take risks
and accept organizational change. Likewise, Mexico after the creation of NAFTA has become an economic powerhouse which is viewed as the gateway to Central and South
American countries for North American trade transactions and investments.
H3: India and Mexico have been following economic policies that are neither pure capitalist nor communistic, therefore one expects both countries to differ culturally from the
United States as well as from Poland and Russia.
Phase two of this study focuses on the main objective of the study, which attempts to
investigate whether individuals who are associated with similar organizations or occupations exhibit cultural similarities regardless of their countries’ cultural background. Even
though, it has been noted that managerial thinking in traditional countries such as India is
influenced by a conflict of cultures arising because the managers have often been trained
in the West or in local colleges that have adopted Western education models (Desai,
1999; Garg and Parikh, 1988; Neelankavil, Mathur and Zang, 2000), managers frequently internalize two sets of values: those drawn from the traditional values and those
drawn from modern education, professional training, and the imperatives of modern
technology (Budhwar, 2001; Ghoshal, Piramal and Bartlett, 2000). Depending on the
nature of problems that people face, these two sets of values co-exist and are drawn upon
as frames of reference.
In the context of culture and organizational functioning, many suggestions have
been put forward to help managers move toward more effective leadership. Tripathi
(1990) argues for the need to integrate people’s traditional values with the more radical
values that characterize industrial democracy. Similarly, Sinha (1984) proposes that
while a leader in traditional countries such as India has to be a “nurturing type,” taking a
personal interest in the well being of each subordinate, he or she can use that nurturance
to encourage and direct subordinates to work hard and uphold an excessive level of
productivity, reinforcing each stage with increased nurturance (Sinha and Kanungo,
1997).
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
61
On the other hand, although, the American corporate culture is affected by international corporate cultures (e.g. Adler, 2002; Hill, 2001) and while it is acknowledged that
convergence of culture exists among global consumers (e.g., Katz and Darbishire, 2001),
it is commonly assumed that peoples’ behaviors continue to manifest national cultural
differences (Hofstede, 1993). Singh Laurent (1983) found that managers working for
the same multinational corporation tend to maintain and even strengthen their cultural
differences in comparison with their counter nationals who were domestically employed.
This indicates that American corporate culture does manifest the values underlined by
the national cultural norms, which are deeply embedded in the American political, economic, religious, and philosophical life. This situation however is slowly changing as the
globalization of American business is happening at an unprecedented high pace. A study
conducted on employees who work for Dallas-based firms showed that there was no significant cultural difference between employees who work for international firms and
those who work for local firms in hierarchical and individual dimensions; however, the
study showed that the former group scores higher means on adaptability cultural attitudes than the latter (Woldu, 2000). Furthermore, Kanter and Corn (1994) found that
corporate cultural differences exist within the American international companies (Kanter
and Corn, 1994).
On the other hand, due to the removal of trade barriers, global economic expansion
and the end of the cold war, it is assumed that there will be more cultural convergence
among employees who work for modern corporation in which the wind of global change
is more visible. However, Marchese (2001), advises that although the existence of cultural integration is occurring worldwide, most of the changes are strongly felt in economically developed countries such as the United States. In this context, it is arguable that the
US national culture, which has already been labeled as weak compared to US corporate
culture (see Hofstede, 1983; Trompenaars, 1994), is further diluted through the global
and multinational organizations, which are constantly importing and exporting foreign
corporate cultures (Hill, 2001). Consequently, the impacts of American (the US) culture
on the way businesses are managed remain an integral part of the American legacy.
H4: Employees who work for professional organizations share a common cultural value
system; therefore, cultural difference among individuals who work for professional organizations for the five countries diminishes.
International business management experts believe that the marketing and production strategies of industrial products can be easily standardized due to the homogenization of industrial consumers’ needs, and product and cost reduction factors (Hill, 2000;
Ball and McCulloch, 2000; Singh, 1990; Jain, 1989; Wind, 1986). Thus, H5 is tested to
assess whether employees of technical service organizations indeed manifest cultural behavior that reflects the above assumption.
62
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
H5: Employees who work for technical organizations (manufacturing and construction
& engineering companies) will have more cultural similarities than other organizations
as their education, training, products, and services tend to undergo standardization.
H6: There are more cultural differences among employees who work for social service
organizations as such sectors are predominantly local service providers with local customers.
Method of research
Data Collection
The study is based on 2,072 respondents collected from five countries over a period of
eight years that involves 555 Indian, 220 Mexican, 378 Polish, 341 Russian, and 578 US
individuals. The surveys were distributed among diversified populations in the major cities of Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas as well as Atlanta in the US; Poznan,
Kalisz, and Leszno in Poland; Delhi and Bangalore in India; and St. Petersburg and
Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic in Russia as well as in three major cities of Mexico. The
surveys were administrated by individuals who had some type of connections with the
sampled organizations at different times between 1995 and 2000. Though the surveys of
this study mostly reflect the behavior of middle-class urban population, it is assumed that
the cultural attitude adequately represents the modern organizations and institutions of
the respective countries. By conducting the surveys in two or more cities and periods of
time we are hoping to avoid data collection bias.
The respondents included a cross section of various population groups representing
different ages, genders, educational backgrounds, professions, occupations, organizations, and different levels of experience (see Table 2). The original English version questionnaire was conducted in the US and India, while surveys conducted in Mexico, Russia,
and Poland were in their own respective national languages. A careful translation procedure was followed to avoid cultural biases that could occur due to translation errors; then
the translated versions were retranslated back to English. The rate of surveys returned
varied from 60% in Russia to 80% in India. For analytical directions, the types of respondents’ occupations in relation to the workplace organizations were recategorized into
three major classifications: professional, technically oriented, and service provider organizations.
The study uses seven cultural dimensions, which are quantitative evaluations of cultural perspectives based on a standardized Liker style questionnaire of 90 items, prepared by Maznevski, DiStefano, and Nason (1995). The questionnaire and the tools applied to design the cultural dimensions are derived from an early study of anthropologists
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
63
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck (1961). The 79 questions whose responses range from
level one (strongly disagree) to level seven (strongly agree) allow us to generate eleven
cultural dimensions, while the last eleven questions provide demographic information
such as country of origin, gender, age, education, occupation, organization, and work experience.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls (SNA)
test at significance level ? = 0.05, was used to measure the cultural differences among the
five countries and the three organizations.
Internal Consistency of Measures
Initially, the survey was designed to investigate cultural differences in all eleven cultural
dimensions, as defined in Table 1. However when the Cronbach Alpha reliability test was
applied to measure the survey’s internal consistency, only seven out of the eleven cultural
dimensions were found to have acceptable coefficient levels for further analysis. They are
as follows: activities of doing (0.66) and thinking (0.76); relations to nature- harmony (0.61)
and subjugation (0.75); human relations- collectivism (0.61) and hierarchical (0.65); and
human nature- good/evil (0.65). On the other hand, the remaining four dimensions that
are excluded from this study due to their low score (under 0.60) in the Cronbach Alpha
reliability coefficient are activities of being (0.35), human nature-individualism (0.47), relations to nature-mastery (0.39) and human nature-changeable (0.01).
Findings
Cross-country cultural differences: testing h1
The output of our analysis as shown in Table 3 shows that there is a strong cross-country
cultural variation among all countries; however, the study indicates that there are a few
areas where some of the countries show cultural similarities. For example, India & Russia
in RNS; US & Poland and Poland & Mexico in HNG; India & Russia in AD; Poland &
Russia and Mexico & Poland in RC; Poland, Mexico & Russia in RH; India, Russia &
Mexico in RNH; Mexico & Russia in AT show no statistically significance differences.
While the output allows us to accept the hypothesis for most of the countries in all of the
cultural dimensions, the few cultural overlaps that exist as discussed above dictate that
we not accept the hypothesis in its absolute term. This would mean that hypothesis H1 is
not fully supported (see the first row for each cultural dimension detailed in Table 3.
64
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
Table 3. Differences in Cultural Dimensions across Countries for Population,
Professional, Technical, and Service Organizations
Mean Scores
Cultural
Dimensions
India
Mexico
Poland
Russia
USA
ANOVA
F-values
Activity
Doing
5.18
1
5.10
2
5.10
1
5.40
1
4.922
1
4.99
2
4.92
2
4.85
4.463
2
4.33
3
4.50
3
4.61
5.281
1
5.13
1
5.40
1
5.27
4.274
2
4.20
3
4.42
4
4.27
147.07 *
43.59 *
31.18*
69.56*
Thinking
5.68
1
5.54
1
5.81
2
5.76
2
5.90
1
1
5.84 5.85
1
5.96
Relation to Nature
Subjugation
3.74
1
3.51
1
1
3.98 3.78
1
2.78
2
2.91
3
2.76
3
2.74
Harmony
5.73
2
5.73
1
5.68
1
5.78
1
5.86
1
6.11
1
5.71
1
5.81
Relationships
Collective
5.02
1
4.95
1
1
5.03 5.10
1
4.63
2
4.52
2
4.74
2
4.56
Hierarchical
4.16
2
4.17
2
3.95
2
4.38
2
4.71
1
4.80
1
4.53
1
4.83
3
4.08
2
3.95
1
4.31
1
3.97
Human Nature 3.84
2
3.88
Good/Evil
2,3
3.66
1
3.96
1
5.52
1
2
5.48 5.54
3
5.54
3
5.95
1
5.72
1
5.99
1
6.06
1
4.72
2
4.65
3
4.81
4
4.76
4
176.88 *
39.82*
40.19*
90.70*
3
3.14
2
2.98
2
3.19
2
3.22
2
3.85
1
3.76
1
4.05
1
3.75
1
2.35
3
2.26
4
2.40
4
2.37
4
175.88 *
49.08*
55.35*
67.16*
1
5.57
2
1
5.57 5.57
1
5.57
2
5.77
2
1
5.69 5.83
1
5.74
1
5.18
3
5.15
2
5.26
2
5.19
3
54.57*
22.97*
7.59*
18.88*
2
4.54
2
4.52
2,3
4.58
2
4.61
2,3
4.42
3
4.05
3
4.36
2
4.56
3
4.17
3
3
4.04 4.44
3
4.19
4
69.96 *
35.23*
12.39*
27.58*
1
4.69
2
1
4.45 4.74
1
4.86
1
4.60
2
1
4.36 4.40
1
4.83
1
3.44
3
3.47
3
3.38
3
3.43
3
138.39*
34.66*
27.79*
75.62*
2
3.93
2
3.92
2
3.93
1
3.93
2,3
4.30
1
4.33
1
4.37
1
4.24
1
3.28
3
3.18
3
3.39
2
3.34
4
63.15 *
25.25*
16.21*
20.92*
Note 1: First row in each cultural dimension represents cross-country mean scores, followed by
mean scores for professional, technical and service organizations.
Note 2: Superscripts 1, 2, 3, and 4 attached to the above values have the following interpretation
for each row: 1 implies a significantly higher value than 2; 2 implies a significantly higher value
than 3; 3 implies significantly higher than 4, at a 0.05 level of significance between countries.
Significance tested using the Student-Newman-Keuls test for post hoc multiple comparisons.
* p<0.001
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
65
Cross-country cultural differences between capitalist and
ex-communist countries: testing H2
In this study, the capitalist country is represented by US while Russia and Poland are assumed to manifest ex-communist cultural behavior, and Mexico and India are ex-socialist countries that tend to adapt developing mixed economy. Based on the output of
the study as presented in Table 2, there is only one clear picture that is relevant to the hypothesis that proves that the US is significantly different from both ex-communist and
ex-socialist countries. However, the output does not give a clear direction as to how to
culturally relate both traditionally non-capitalist countries. While, both Poland and Russia share more cultural similarities with Mexico, Poland and Russia show limited cultural
similarities with each other; found to be similar only in RH. On the other hand, while
Russia demonstrates more cultural similarities with India, Poland and India are similar
only in one cultural dimension (see the first row for each cultural dimension as detailed in
Table 3). In conclusion, it is clear that the output of the study strongly supports hypothesis H2; however, it should be understood that neither the defined ex-communist nor
pro-socialist countries showed any cultural resemblance between/among themselves.
Cross-country cultural differences between Mexico and India versus
the capitalist and ex-communist countries: testing H3
While both Mexico and India significantly differ from the US, they do not manifest a
clear cultural deviation from the ex-communist countries, Poland and Russia. For example, Russia and Mexico are not culturally different in AT, RNH, and RH, while Russia
and India manifest cultural similarities in RNS, AD, and RNH. On the other hand, Poland and Mexico are culturally similar in HNG, RC, and RH. However, it is also important to note from the output that, both Mexico and India, in spite of the fact that they
have similar socioeconomic conditions and have had a history of adapting similar economic systems categorized as socialist or mixed economy, did not culturally align themselves (see the first row for each cultural dimension as detailed in Table 3). This means,
hypothesis H3 is rejected.
H4: Employees who work for professional organizations share common cultural value
systems; therefore, cultural difference among individuals who work for professional organizations diminishes: Testing H4
The outcome of the study as provided in Table 3, clearly shows that there are interesting observations worth reporting (see the second row for each cultural dimension detailed in Table 3).
66
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
First of all, respondents (except for Mexico where higher scores are noted for HNG,
RH, and RNH) who work for professional organizations scored less in RNS, RC, HNG,
RNH, and AT when employees who work for other organizations are held constant. This
clearly shows that the cultural differences that were observed at a national level narrow
down when our cultural comparison is focused only on employees who work for professional organizations. Therefore, hypothesis H4 is partially accepted.
H5: Employees who work for technical organizations will have more cultural similarities than other organizations as their education, training, products, and services tend to
undergo standardization: Testing H5.
There are few observations that are significant from the output as indicated in Table
4. The US respondents, who stood alone as proven in hypothesis H1, underwent some
significant changes in this case. When controlling was applied for other employees, the
output showed that there are no cultural differences between US and Indian technical
employees in HNG; US and Polish technical employees in AD, and among US, Polish,
and Russians technical employees in RC. This would suggest that cultural conversion
among employees working for technical oriented organizations is taking place in the
above cultural dimensions. However, it is important to highlight that, in this particular
case, most of the cultural conversion that is taking place, as can be observed from Table
3, can be attributed to the changes within US, Russia, and Mexico. Technical employees
scored slightly higher than their overall respective populations’ average mean scores in
cultural dimensions HNG and AD (see the third row for each cultural dimension as detailed in Table 3).
H6: There are visible cultural differences among employees who work for social service
organizations as such sectors are predominantly local service providers with local customers.
With the exception of the case of HNG, where the average mean score for respondents who work for service oriented organizations has increased compared to the overall
respective total surveyed populations for all countries, there are no significant changes
taking place among the rest of the cultural dimensions. Thus, there is no evidence to support for the hypothesis suggested above from the output of the study. In fact, with regard
to cultural dimensions—HNG, RH, and RNH—one can say that, with the exception of
the US, all countries tend to cluster together, which allows the argument that contrary to
the assumption of the study there is more cultural convergence among service oriented
employees than in the other sectors (see the fourth row for each cultural dimension as detailed in Table 3)
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
67
Interpretation
With regard to cross-country cultural analysis, as stated in our earlier discussion, contrary
to the assumption of hypothesis H1, not all countries differ from each other. The only
clear picture one gets from the output in phase one of the study is the fact that respondents from the United States are culturally different from the rest of the four countries.
This outcome partially supports hypothesis H2. On the other hand, the fact that Mexico
and Poland show more cultural resemblance than others indicate that neither the communist comradeship between Russia and Poland that lasted more than fifty years nor the
geographical proximity of Mexico and US as well as their economic integration were significant factors in impacting their national cultures. Uzbek and Gentleman (1994) consider Poland and Mexico similar to each other due their comparable socioeconomic and
political lives as well as their experience with socialist parties that reigned for more than
fifty years. Another factor that could have played a role in the cultural resemblance of Poland and Mexico contrary to the dissimilarities of Mexico and India (which means the rejection of hypothesis H3), is the Catholic religion which engulfs almost all of the residences of both Poland and Mexico.
One learns from the outcome in the phase two analysis that employees who work for
professional organizations in the case of all countries scored lower means in AD, RNS,
RC, and AT except for Mexico and the US in RH. This would mean that we can assume
that global professional employees are adapting to homogenous or standardized cultural
behaviors more than the overall population in certain cultural dimensions, but not necessarily in all cultural aspects. The low mean scores on the above dimensions mean respondents who work for professional organizations show less attitude towards doing, being
subjugated, collectivism behaviors, and are less inclined to risk avoidance activities than
the general populations in the respective countries.
With regard to the outcome of the attitude of respondents who work for technical organizations, it is important to stress the presence of cultural convergence among certain
countries. For example with regard to AD and AT, one notices the existence of cultural
difference among the overall populations of Mexico, Russia, and India. However, if we
compare the countries only for the technical organization employees by controlling the
rest of the population, we notice that there are significant cultural similarities among the
three countries. Likewise, the US differs from all countries with regard to RC and HNG,
however when the comparison is done only among technical organization employees, one
sees clearly that there is no significant cultural difference among Russian, Polish, and
American respondents in RC, and between Americans and Indians in HNG. The results
also bring to our attention the fact that technical organization employees of American,
Polish, and Russian origin, when compared to their respective professional organization
68
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
employee and overall populations, manifest strong attitude towards activities of doing,
human nature good/evil, and collective relations. This means technical employees compared to the rest could be team players as well as result and work oriented, but could lean
towards judging or stereotyping others.
Finally, As far as employees of service organizations are concerned, we can learn two
important things from the study. In the first place, the US employees, by scoring the lowest means for all dimensions, stand apart from the rest of the countries. Secondly, there is
more cultural homogeneity among the service organization employees of all countries
(excluding United States) than in both professional and technical organization employees. To be precise, regardless of a countries’ socioeconomic background or ideological
orientation, all of them score significantly higher means than the US and there is more
cultural uniformity among them in harmonious relations to nature, collective relations
and stereotyping of others.
In conclusion, we would like to stress that the findings that are discussed in this study
are very important additions to management sciences. The paper brings to the readers’
attention the fact that the empirical results of this study confirm what has been said earlier—the national and organizational cultures of the United States of America continue
to differ significantly from the rest of the world (Hofstede, 1983 & 1991; Laurent, 1983;
Trompenaars, 1994; Woldu and Biederman, 1999; Adler, 1997). However, the results
also reveal that cultural convergence is taking place slowly but certainly at the level of organizations. Finally, the authors would like to highlight that the lack of or little cultural resemblance of cultural similarities between Mexico and the United States as well as between Poland and Russia clearly indicates that the value systems of nations goes farther
and deeper than political alliance or geographical proximity of nations.
Bibliography
Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, International
Thomas Publishing, Ohio.
Adler, N.J. (1983), “Cross-Cultural Management: Issues to Be Faced,” International
Studies of Management and Organization, vol.13, no. 1-2, Spring-Summer, pp.7-45.
Ball, D. and McCulloch, W. (2000), International Business. The Challenge of Global
Competition, New York, 7th Edition, McGraw Hill.
Barry, E. (1995), “Dispute between Russia and American Joint Ventures,” The Moscow
Times, 29/4.
Brewster, C. and Scullion, S. (1997), “A Review and Agenda for Expatriate HRM,”
Human Resource Management Journal, 7(3): 32–41.
Child, J., “Culture, Contingency and Capitalism in the Cross-National Study of
Organization,” in L. L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Editors), (1981), Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol. 3 Greenwich, Co.: Jai Press, pp. 303–356.
Cultural Similarities among Employees Working for Organisations...
69
Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-Identity and Work, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Ford, C.R. and Richardson, D.W. (1994), “Ethical Decision Making: A Review of the
Empirical Literature,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 13, pp. 205–221.
Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, New York: Anchor Press.
Hill, C. (2000), International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace, 3rd edition,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Hoecklin, L. (1995), Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York.
Hofstede, G. (1994), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind-Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, Harper Collins, London.
Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural Constraints in Management Theories,” Academy of
Management Executive 7 (1), 81–94.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London:
McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1983), “National Cultures in Four Dimensions,” International Studies of
Management & Organization, Vol. XIII, No. 1-2, pp. 46–74.
Hossen, D., Gustavsson, P. (1995), “Competition by Effective Management of
Cultural Diversity,” International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 22, No.
4, pp. 81–92.
Jain, S.C. (1989), “Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some
Research Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 1, pp. 70–79.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations,
Greenwood Press, Connecticut.
Kostera, M. (1995), “Differing Managerial Responses to Change in Poland,”
Organization Studies, 16/4, pp. 673–697.
Lamb, J. (2000), “Recruiters Turn to India for IT Expertise as Skills Crisis Bites,”
People Management, August.
Laurent, A. (1983), “The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management”,
International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. XIII, no. 1–2 pp. 75–96.
Lucas, E. (1998), “Eastern Europe: Time To Smarten Up,” The World in 1998, Special
Edition, The Economist, p. 44.
Maznevski, M., DiStefano, and Nason (1995), “The Cultural Perspectives
Standardized Questionnaire,” University of Virginia.
Maznevski, M.L., DiStephano, J., Gomerz, C., Noorderhaven, N., and Wu, P. (2002),
“Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: the Cultural Orientations
Framework,” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol.2: 275–296.
Murrell, P. (1993), “What Is Shock Therapy? What Did it Do in Poland and Russia?”
Post-Soviet Affairs, pp. 111–140.
Sethi, S.P. and Steidlmeier, P. (1993), “Religion’s Moral Compass and a Just
Economic Order: Reflections on Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Centesimus Annus,”
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 12, pp. 901–917.
Sinha J. & Sinha D. (1990), “Role of Social Values in Indian Organizations,”
International Journal of Psychology, vol. 25. pp. 705–715.
70
Habte G. Woldu, Malgorzata K. Woldu
Singh, J. P. (1990), Managerial Culture and Work Related Values in India.
Organization Studies 11 (1), 75–101.
Suutari, V., “Problems Faced by Western Managers in Eastern Europe”, JEEMS,
3/1998, pp. 249–267.
Cox, T. (1994), Cultural Diversity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers. San
Francisco.
Trompenaars, F. (1994), “Riding the Waves of Culture,” The Economist Books,
London.
Tung, R.L. (1987), “Executive Assignments: Enhancing Success and Minimizing
Failure,” Academy of Management Executives, vol. 1, no.2, pp. 117–126.
Tung, R.L. (1998), The New Expatriates: Managing Human Resources Abroad, Ballinger,
Cambridge, Mass.
Huang, X. and Van de Vliert, E. (2003), “Comparing Work Behaviors across Cultures:
A Cross-Level Approach Using Multilevel Modeling,” International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 3(2) 167–182.
Wind, W. (1986), “The Myth of Globalization,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 2,
pp. 23–26.
Woldu, H. and Robbins, L. (2000), “Measuring Cultural Variations in the Americas:
Does Geographical Proximity Indicates Cultural Similarity?” Southwest Review of
International Business Research, Academy of International Business: U.S. Southwest
Chapter Conference, 2000, 163–173.
Woldu, H. and Biederman, M. (1999), “The Dynamics of Organizational Culture in
the Private, Government, and Semi-Government Companies in Poland,” JEEMS, Vol.
4(4), pp. 306–321.
Woldu, H. and Guo, I. (1999), “Understanding Cultural Differences Between Russia
and North America,” Frazer, M. and Chatterji, M. (Editors), Management Education
for Countries in Transition, Macmillan Publishers, London.
Woldu, H. and Fitzpatrick, S. (1998), “How Poland Differs from East and West in
Cultural Perspective,” Poznan Academy of Economics Scientific Papers, 3(5), pp.
81–102.
Uzbek, V. and Gentleman, J. (1994), Economic Crises and the Movement toward
Pluralism in Poland and Mexico, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 335–359, summer.