11

Recognizing and Recognizing and ManagingManaging

Cultural PatternsCultural Patterns

Stuart A. UmplebyStuart A. UmplebyThe George Washington UniversityThe George Washington University

Washington, DCWashington, DC

22

Stuart A. UmplebyStuart A. Umpleby

Speakers' BioSpeakers' Bio

Dr. Stuart A. Umpleby is a professor in the Dr. Stuart A. Umpleby is a professor in the Department of Management and Director Department of Management and Director of the Research Program in Social and of the Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning in the School of Organizational Learning in the School of Business at The George Washington Business at The George Washington University, in Washington, DC. He is a past University, in Washington, DC. He is a past president of the American Society for president of the American Society for Cybernetics, and Associate Editor of the Cybernetics, and Associate Editor of the journal Cybernetics and Systems. journal Cybernetics and Systems.

33

Origins of cultural differencesOrigins of cultural differences

Organizational structureOrganizational structure National, ethnic, or religious cultural National, ethnic, or religious cultural

differencesdifferences A combinationA combination

44

Task oriented

Person oriented

IncubatorFulfillment-oriented culture  

Guided missile Project-oriented culture

Eiffel Tower Role-oriented culture

FamilyPerson-oriented culture

Egalitarian  

Corporate cultures

Hierarchical

55

Family cultureFamily culture

Person-orientedPerson-oriented Close face-to-face relationships but Close face-to-face relationships but

also hierarchicalalso hierarchical The “parent” has authority over The “parent” has authority over

“children”“children” A power-oriented corporate cultureA power-oriented corporate culture High contextHigh context Diffuse relationshipsDiffuse relationships

66

Incubator cultureIncubator culture

Fulfillment-orientedFulfillment-oriented Free individuals from routineFree individuals from routine Both personal and egalitarianBoth personal and egalitarian Very little structureVery little structure Emotional commitment to a creative Emotional commitment to a creative

processprocess Leadership position is achievedLeadership position is achieved

77

Eiffel Tower cultureEiffel Tower culture

Role-orientedRole-oriented Bureaucratic division of laborBureaucratic division of labor Coordination by higher levelsCoordination by higher levels Specific rather than diffuse Specific rather than diffuse

relationshipsrelationships Status is ascribedStatus is ascribed Qualifications are importantQualifications are important

88

Guided missile cultureGuided missile culture

Project-oriented, task-orientedProject-oriented, task-oriented Egalitarian but impersonalEgalitarian but impersonal Rationale of endsRationale of ends Neutral, not affectionate, cultureNeutral, not affectionate, culture Intrinsic motivationIntrinsic motivation Individualists and specialistsIndividualists and specialists

99

Cross-Cultural Project Teams Cross-Cultural Project Teams

Increasing trend in application of:Increasing trend in application of:• Cross-organization projectsCross-organization projects• International projectsInternational projects• Global organizationsGlobal organizations• OutsourcingOutsourcing• Multi-cultural project teamsMulti-cultural project teams

Growing body of research and Growing body of research and literature on cultural differencesliterature on cultural differences

1010

Widely accepted studiesWidely accepted studies

G. Hofstede’s studies of IBM G. Hofstede’s studies of IBM employees in many countriesemployees in many countries

F. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-F. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner’s more recent studies of Turner’s more recent studies of cultural differencescultural differences

Z. Aycan, et al.’s socio-cultural Z. Aycan, et al.’s socio-cultural dimensionsdimensions

1111

1) Relations between people1) Relations between people

Individualism vs. communitarianism – the Individualism vs. communitarianism – the individual is more important than the group individual is more important than the group or the group is more important than the or the group is more important than the individualindividual USA, Australia, UK USA, Australia, UK Guatemala, Ecuador, PanamaGuatemala, Ecuador, Panama

Universalism vs. particularism – a rule-Universalism vs. particularism – a rule-oriented society (a well-developed legal oriented society (a well-developed legal system) vs. a person-oriented system) vs. a person-oriented societysociety

1212

2) Motivational orientation2) Motivational orientation

Masculinity vs. femininity – sharply defined Masculinity vs. femininity – sharply defined roles for men and women vs. similar rolesroles for men and women vs. similar roles

Japan, Austria, Germany Sweden, Norway, NetherlandsJapan, Austria, Germany Sweden, Norway, Netherlands

Uncertainty avoidance – seeking to avoid Uncertainty avoidance – seeking to avoid uncertainty vs. tolerating high uncertaintyuncertainty vs. tolerating high uncertainty

Power distance – people feel comfortable Power distance – people feel comfortable with large differences in power among with large differences in power among people or they prefer equalitypeople or they prefer equality Malaysia, Mexico Austria, DenmarkMalaysia, Mexico Austria, Denmark

1313

3) Attitudes toward time3) Attitudes toward time

Long-term vs. short term orientation – Long-term vs. short term orientation – patient about results or notpatient about results or not China, Japan, South Korea Western countries, Nigeria, China, Japan, South Korea Western countries, Nigeria,

PakistanPakistan Sequential vs. synchronic – prefer to do Sequential vs. synchronic – prefer to do

tasks one at a time or comfortable doing tasks one at a time or comfortable doing several things at onceseveral things at once

Inner vs. outer time – preference for Inner vs. outer time – preference for working on one’s own schedule or working on one’s own schedule or comfortable working on group’s schedulecomfortable working on group’s schedule

1414

4) Control4) Control

Internal control vs. External controlInternal control vs. External control• The culture’s belief that it controls its The culture’s belief that it controls its

environment or works with itenvironment or works with it• Implications for (newly) democratic Implications for (newly) democratic

systems systems

1515

5) Socio-cultural dimensions5) Socio-cultural dimensions

Paternalism – superiors provide Paternalism – superiors provide guidance, protection, and nurturing guidance, protection, and nurturing while subordinates are loyal and while subordinates are loyal and deferentialdeferential

Fatalism – the belief that it is not Fatalism – the belief that it is not possible to control the outcomes of possible to control the outcomes of one’s actions, so hard work and long-one’s actions, so hard work and long-term plans are not worthwhileterm plans are not worthwhile

1616

Western vs. Non-Western ValuesWestern vs. Non-Western Values

IndividualismIndividualism WinningWinning Respect for resultsRespect for results Specific/ linearSpecific/ linear

VerbalVerbal Achievement Achievement Internal self-controlInternal self-control PridePride

Collectivism/ groupCollectivism/ group HarmonyHarmony Respect for statusRespect for status HolisticHolistic

Non-verbalNon-verbal Modesty Modesty External controlExternal control Saving faceSaving face

1717

Western vs. Non-Western ValuesWestern vs. Non-Western Values EqualityEquality Respect competenceRespect competence Time is money Time is money Action/ doingAction/ doing SystematicSystematic TasksTasks InformalInformal AssertivenessAssertiveness Future/ changeFuture/ change ControlControl

Hierarchy Hierarchy Respect for eldersRespect for elders Time is life Time is life Being/ acceptanceBeing/ acceptance HumanisticHumanistic Relationship/ loyaltyRelationship/ loyalty FormalFormal IndirectnessIndirectness Past/ traditionPast/ tradition FateFate

1818

Year 2000 (Year 2000 (Y2K) project Y2K) project

Each nation and organization set up Each nation and organization set up its own year 2000 (Y2K) computer its own year 2000 (Y2K) computer projectsprojects• Information was widely shared among Information was widely shared among

technical specialists in meetings, papers technical specialists in meetings, papers and various mediaand various media

• People recognized all would benefit by People recognized all would benefit by sharing informationsharing information

• Top management supported and funded Top management supported and funded this projectthis project

1919

Y2K results: A successful Y2K results: A successful project project

Millions of Y2K projects completed Millions of Y2K projects completed worldwide with resounding successworldwide with resounding success• Ahead of ScheduleAhead of Schedule• Generally below budgetGenerally below budget• With no significant failuresWith no significant failures

2020

Iridium project: Anywhere to Iridium project: Anywhere to anywhere communicationsanywhere communications

2121

Iridium project Iridium project

A satellite telecommunications A satellite telecommunications network costing $5 billion and network costing $5 billion and involving 6,000 engineers and involving 6,000 engineers and managers in 26 countriesmanagers in 26 countries

Used proven project management Used proven project management methods and promising practicesmethods and promising practices

Capability Maturity Model:Capability Maturity Model:Level 3 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4

2222

Iridium project results:Iridium project results:A failed projectA failed project

The international structure was The international structure was almost impossible to manage – almost impossible to manage – many languages, cultural many languages, cultural differences, different styles of differences, different styles of management and communicationmanagement and communication

Cost: US$3.4B Cost: US$3.4B US$5.0B US$5.0B Implemented in 1998-1999Implemented in 1998-1999 Bankrupt in 2000 Bankrupt in 2000 Sold for US$25 Sold for US$25

millionmillion

2323

Cultural maturityCultural maturityC

once

rn f

or c

ultu

re o

f ot

hers

High

Low

Accommodating: When in Rome…

Recognition

LowConcern for own culture

Respect

Reconciliation

Forcing: My way or…

High

Adapted from: Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2003

2424

ReconciliationReconciliation

““An approach where the two An approach where the two opposing views can come to fuse or opposing views can come to fuse or blend - where the strength of one blend - where the strength of one extreme is extended by considering extreme is extended by considering and accommodating the other” and accommodating the other”

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2003Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2003

2525

ConclusionsConclusions

There is an increasing number of There is an increasing number of international, multi-cultural projectsinternational, multi-cultural projects

Multi-cultural teams can provide Multi-cultural teams can provide experience and innovative thinking experience and innovative thinking

Cultural differences can be seen as an Cultural differences can be seen as an assetasset

Managers need to be culturally Managers need to be culturally sensitive and use flexible leadership to sensitive and use flexible leadership to promote creativity and innovationpromote creativity and innovation

2626

Contact InformationContact Information

Prof. Stuart UmplebyProf. Stuart Umpleby

Department of ManagementDepartment of Management School of BusinessSchool of Business George Washington UniversityGeorge Washington University Washington, DC 20052 USAWashington, DC 20052 USA

www.gwu.edu/~umplebywww.gwu.edu/~umpleby umpleby@gwu.eduumpleby@gwu.edu

2727

Questions?Questions?

Thank you very much!