Decision-Making and Cultural Values CLIPPER PROJECT GROUP Adapted

Decision-Making and Cultural Values CLIPPER PROJECT GROUP Adapted from materials prepared by Mark F. Peterson, Florida Atlantic University and Peter B. Smith, University of Sussex. January 23, 2009. For details: mpeterso@fau. edu

Culture Analysis Risks and Benefits n Potential benefits: – Handle ad hoc intercultural contacts when detailed briefing is impractical – Promote rapid self-directed learning by knowing what issues to consider – Anticipate likely reaction of large groups n Potential Risks: – Damaging or inflexible stereotypes

Avoiding Damaging Stereotypes Consciously held n Descriptive rather than evaluative n Accurate n Best “first guess” n Modified with experience n In the face of problems, assume misunderstanding until disagreement is proven. Adapted from Adler, Nancy J. (1991): International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (2 nd ed. ). Boston: PWS-Kent, p. 72.

Comparative Culture Projects n Hofstede – Collective Programming – I/C, PD, M/F, UA n Trompenaars – Riding the Waves – Achievement/Ascription, Obligation/Entitlement n Inglehart – World Values Survey – Traditional/Secular, Survival/Self-Expression GLOBE – Update Hofstede, Leader Ideals n Schwartz Values Survey n

Schwartz Individual Dimensions Benevolence n Conformity n Traditionalism n Security n Power n Achievement n Hedonism n Stimulation n Self Direction n Universalism Selected best items (highest factor loading) n

SVS Norms – English NA Ben: 49. Helpful Con: 11. Politeness Tra: 36. Humble Sec: 8. Social Order Pow: 27. Authority Ach: 55. Successful Hed: 4. Pleasure Sti: 25. Varied Life Sel: 41. Own Goals Uni: 30. Social Justice U. S. 4. 31 4. 53 4. 09 3. 81 2. 97 4. 79 4. 19 4. 09 4. 93 4. 24 Jama 4. 81 5. 28 4. 74 4. 93 3. 73 5. 70 3. 67 4. 14 5. 30 5. 09 Cana 4. 54 4. 67 3. 70 3. 77 2. 65 4. 99 3. 95 4. 57 4. 93 4. 38 Barb 4. 89 5. 11 4. 93 4. 56 2. 73 5. 63 3. 59 3. 69 5. 89 4. 46

SVS Norms – Non-English NA Ben: 49. Helpful Con: 11. Politeness Tra: 36. Humble Sec: 8. Social Order Pow: 27. Authority Ach: 55. Successful Hed: 4. Pleasure Sti: 25. Varied Life Sel: 41. Own Goals Uni: 30. Social Justice Braz 4. 23 4. 42 3. 69 3. 43 2. 17 4. 82 4. 18 3. 41 4. 97 4. 53 China Mex 4. 60 4. 02 4. 93 4. 02 4. 73 3. 02 5. 11 3. 60 3. 28 3. 82 4. 97 5. 28 3. 22 3. 83 3. 49 3. 99 5. 07 5. 28 4. 59 4. 02

SVS Norms -- Regions M. A. Ben: 49. Helpful 4. 06 Con: 11. Polite 4. 24 Tra: 36. Humble 3. 82 Sec: 8. Soc. Ord. 3. 68 Pow: 27. Author. 2. 88 Ach: 55. Success 5. 09 Hed: 4. Pleasure 4. 12 Sti: 25. Var. Life 3. 88 Sel: 41. Own Gl. 5. 03 Uni: 30. Soc. Jus 4. 03 FL 4. 64 4. 68 4. 16 4. 12 3. 16 5. 00 4. 36 3. 76 5. 56 3. 08 S. A. 4. 36 4. 69 4. 13 3. 72 3. 15 4. 97 4. 54 4. 08 5. 10 3. 95 PNW 4. 21 4. 71 4. 47 3. 95 2. 66 4. 26 3. 69 4. 08 4. 76 4. 16 MAR 4. 42 4. 89 4. 00 4. 07 2. 93 5. 27 4. 38 4. 60 5. 22 4. 58 ONT 4. 16 4. 45 3. 93 4. 20 3. 29 5. 49 4. 16 4. 82 5. 24 4. 18 PRA 4. 62 4. 49 3. 63 3. 68 2. 45 4. 63 3. 89 4. 18 4. 77 4. 31 B. C. 4. 28 4. 93 3. 72 3. 79 2. 79 5. 03 3. 93 4. 52 5. 03 4. 10 M. A. – Mid Atlantic, FL – Florida, S. A. – South Atlantic, PNW – Pacific Northwest, MAR – Maritimes, ONT – Ontario, PRA – Prairies, B. C. – British Columbia High values mean high emphasis on a goal.

EVENT MEANING MANAGEMENT: EIGHT ORGANIZATIONAL EVENTS n n n n Appointing a New Subordinate A Subordinate who is Doing Good Work A Subordinate who is Doing Poor Work Equipment or Machinery Needs Replacement Another Department Does Not Provide Resources/Support Differing Opinions within the Department You see the need to Introduce New Work Procedures The Time Comes to Evaluate New Work Procedures

SOURCES OF GUIDANCE n n n n n Formal rules and procedures Unwritten Rules: ‘How we do things around here’ My subordinates Specialists outside my department Other people at my level My superior Opinions based on own experience and training Beliefs that are widely accepted in my country Members of my family Friends outside this organization

WHERE? n n n Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, UK, Ukraine Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico, USA Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Turkey China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand Australia, New Zealand

Decision 1. New Subordinate: Anglo U. S. 3. 43 2. 92 2. 90 2. 14 2. 57 3. 72 U. K. 3. 42 2. 43 2. 44 2. 21 2. 09 2. 98 3. 87 Oz. 3. 77 2. 59 2. 28 2. 24 2. 18 3. 37 3. 52 Jam 3. 60 2. 89 2. 34 2. 32 2. 68 3. 87 3. 22 Canada 3. 54 2. 51 2. 74 2. 93 3. 61 3. 79 Formal Rules Unwritten Rules Subordinates Staff specialists Colleagues Superior Own experience Widely accepted beliefs 2. 93 2. 44 2. 57 2. 71 Scale: 1 -5 where high values mean high use.

Decision 1. New Subordinate: Others Formal Rules Unwritten Rules Subordinates Staff specialists Colleagues Superior Own experience Widely accepted beliefs Franc Japan Chin 3. 25 3. 74 3. 18 3. 17 2. 74 2. 81 2. 80 2. 76 2. 45 2. 29 2. 00 2. 46 2. 64 2. 33 2. 51 3. 65 3. 58 3. 43 3. 92 3. 61 Nige 4. 01 3. 12 3. 22 2. 85 3. 11 3. 75 3. 55 Bela 2. 82 2. 43 2. 40 2. 08 2. 27 3. 71 3. 82 2. 49 2. 74 3. 41 3. 20 2. 67 Scale: 1 -5 where high values mean high use.

Decision 1. New Subordinate: Latin America U. S. 3. 43 2. 92 2. 90 2. 14 2. 57 3. 72 Braz. 3. 70 2. 78 2. 82 2. 74 2. 50 3. 43 4. 02 Colo. 3. 26 2. 80 2. 26 2. 59 2. 71 3. 27 4. 03 Chile 3. 71 3. 22 2. 70 2. 49 3. 22 3. 94 4. 05 Mexico 3. 63 2. 98 2. 52 2. 60 2. 78 3. 76 3. 62 Formal Rules Unwritten Rules Subordinates Staff specialists Colleagues Superior Own experience Widely accepted beliefs 2. 93 2. 66 2. 77 3. 23 2. 99 Scale: 1 -5 where high values mean high use.

WORKING TOGETHER: USA AND UK

WORKING TOGETHER: USA AND UK

WORKING TOGETHER: JAMAICA AND BARBADOS

Implications for International Alliances n n n Diagnose sources used most heavily in collaborating organizations. Consider whether differences are readily management or if they should affect decision to collaborate. Look for complementary strengths, especially for different kinds of projects or different facets of joint projects. Decide which sources will be most central in implementing collaboration. Identify collaboration barriers and plan steps to overcome them.

Implications for IB Programs n n n Send procedures manuals where rules are used, and train in application of procedures Plan organization culture change programs where informal norms are used; transformational leaders; visible symbols of change Provide for supervisor training where supervisors are used; transfer supervisors with technology; bring supervisors to headquarters for training Provide opportunities for discussion and participation where subordinates and colleagues are used Carefully coordinate programs with national norms where national norms are used

World Bank Example Application: Managing Government Size The nature of efficient government may be culturally dependent: Change the sources used, or use preferred sources more efficiently? n Extensive staff bureaucrats to write and/or enforce regulations where rules are used heavily? n Ideological monitors where societal norms are used heavily? n Extensive staff experts to advise about projects where experts are used heavily? n Large line organizations where conferring with subordinates or colleagues is used heavily? n

OWN EXPERIENCE & TRAINING

WIDESPREAD BELIEFS AS TO WHAT IS RIGHT

FORMAL RULES AND PROCEDURES

US PROFILE

ARGENTINE PROFILE

BRAZILIAN PROFILE

CZECH PROFILE

BELARUS PROFILE

HONG KONG PROFILE

CHINESE PROFILE

TANZANIAN PROFILE

UGANDAN PROFILE

References n Smith, P. B. , Peterson, M. F. & Schwartz, S. Cultural values, sources of guidance and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47 nation study. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 2002, 33(1), 188 -208. n Smith, P. B. , Peterson, M. F. , D’Amorim, M. A. , Davila, C. , Gamas, E. , Malvezzi, S & Saiz, J. L. Leadership in Latin American organizations: An event management perspective. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 1999, 33 (2), 93 -120. n Peterson, M. F. & Smith, P. B. Meanings, organizations and culture: Using sources of meaning to make sense of organizational events. In Neal Ashkanasy, Celeste Wilderom & Mark F. Peterson (eds. ), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press, 2000, pp. 101 -115. n Peterson, M. F. , Elliott, J. R. , Bliese, P. D. & Radford, M. H. B. Profile analysis of the sources of meaning reported by U. S. and Japanese local government managers. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Peter Bamberger, Miriam Erez and Samuel B. Bacharach (eds. ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996, pp. 91 -147.

Schwartz National Value Dimensions Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism - legitimacy of unequal distribution vs. transcendence of selfish interests. Mastery vs. harmony - getting ahead vs. fitting harmoniously. Conservatism vs. intellectual and affective individualism - maintaining the status quo vs. individuals pursuing their own ideas and affectively positive experience.

Schwartz Nation Scores: Examples Conservatism (National security, Hierarchy Mastery (Authority) (Independent, Ambitious) Honor parents) Slovakia Germany Holland Israel Jews Israel Arabs Japan Spain U. S. 4. 3 3. 4 3. 7 4. 1 4. 3 3. 9 3. 4 3. 9 2. 1 2. 3 2. 7 3. 2 2. 9 2. 0 2. 4 4. 1 4. 0 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 1 4. 3 From Schwartz, 1994; high values mean a high level of the culture dimension