Management Essay：文化管理理论

Management Essay：文化管理理论
The Cultural Management Theories 

领导阶层似乎是一个普遍现象。目前没有一个社会发现完全缺失的地方或者文化规范已经完全代替它。为领导提供各种定义的多样性露面,领导可能需要和内部文化和组织。Bass (1990)提供了一个极好的领导各种观点的总结:

这过多的领导关于领导力的定义表明,在奖学金有许多不同的理解什么是领导力。继续努力建立理论,结合不同的定义和相关理论方法来领导,但有限的成功(高堡&索伦森,2006)。因此,我们开始寻找领导在其他文化的意识的复杂理解领导的文化内进行搜索。

此外,文化不是静态的,它们是动态的和不断发展。这种演变因文化而异,不时在相同的文化。相关的信仰、价值观、文化和其他元素在单个时间点未必是相同的在稍后的时间在同一个文化;因此检查领导在不同文化的非常复杂的任务。

跨文化关系的一些研究寻找因素帮助人们相处(匹廷斯基,2009)或文化因素推动差异和冲突(柯林斯,1998)。领导力和文化的讨论也使用小额信贷单元分析的例子,团体或组织文化(协议&肯尼迪,2000)或文化差异组在同一地理边界。胡安娜borda(2007),例如,概述了文化维度的种族和族裔群体在美国产生改善建议的理解和实践领导力。

伯纳德•巴斯(1990)指出不同单位的分析研究领导力和文化:国家内部和国家之间、组织和团体。

This plethora of leadership definitions suggests that within the scholarship about leadership there are many disparate understandings of what leadership is. Efforts continue to establish theories that incorporate different definitions and related theoretical approaches to leadership, but with limited success (Goethals & Sorenson, 2006). Thus, we begin our search for leadership within other cultures with an awareness of the complex understanding of leadership within the culture of those conducting the search.

Furthermore, cultures are not static; they are dynamic and continually evolving. This evolution varies from culture to culture and from time to time within the same culture. The associated beliefs, values, and other elements of culture at a single point in time may not necessarily be the same at a later time in the same culture; hence the immensely complicated task of examining leadership across different cultures.

Some studies of intercultural relationships look for factors that help people get along (Pittinsky, 2009) or for cultural factors that promote differences and conflict (Collins, 1998). Discussions of leadership and culture also use units of analysis in their work-for example, group or organizational culture (Deal & Kennedy, 2000) or cultural differences among groups within the same geographic boundaries. Juana Bordas (2007), for example, outlines cultural dimensions of racial and ethnic groups in the United States to suggest differences-and improvements-in the understanding and practice of leadership.

Bernard Bass (1990) pointed out different units of analysis in the study of leadership and culture: within and among countries, organizations, and groups. Moreover, he underscored the importance of understanding cultural differences between countries. Studies have borne out Bass's attention to cultural analysis at the national level: The interdependence of global economic, social, and political arrangements requires citizens of one nation to collaborate with citizens of another. Since Bass's comments, further study has shown that the success of the work of one nation's citizens in another culture is dependent upon understanding cultural differences, including the variations among attitudes toward and the practice of leadership.

Yet there are rewards for this effort to understand a changing phenomenon from different and conflicting perspectives. Bass posed intriguing questions for the effort to determine the cultural components of leadership: How much can we generalize about leadership from one culture to another? Are some elements of leadership universal while others are culturally relative? The internationalization of business and the global village prompt these questions, for managers educated and experienced in one country and culture must know what decision-making practices and leadership styles are best suited for another country and culture.

Naturally, these questions and needs pervade political and civic leadership concerns as well. Civil society is global as well as local and national. Nongovernmental organizations and international government agencies are multinational organizations as much as some corporations are. International understanding and cooperation as well as misunderstanding and war may depend, in part, on how well we understand our similarities and differences.

Nancy Adler surveys scholarly definitions and reasserts the synthesis that Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn derived from 164 definitions of culture. In some ways, anthropologists, such as Margaret Mead, pioneered the cross-cultural, comparative study of leadership as authority. As Bass pointed out,

Mead's a€| anthropological comparisons clearly showed that what it takes to be a leader varies across primitive culturesa€|. The aggressive, efficient, ambitious Manus leader in Oceania would have been rejected by the Dakota Indians, who valued mutual welfare, conforming to the group, generosity, and hospitality. (Bass, 1990, p. 785)

Knowing the cultural expectations that group members have themselves, and person in authority provides one avenue of understanding the leadership. While the scholarship of leadership and authority within a particular culture continues, other research looks for patterns among national cultures or common patterns that may be used to analyze, compare, and differentiate national cultures. Associating countries by cultural affinities permits the creation of clusters, thus reducing the number of units to analyze.

The clusters permit a summary that displays cross-cultural similarities and differences and allows for a preliminary sketch of leadership patterns found among a group of nations. History, geography, language, religion, the stage of technological development, and related factors contribute to the formation of these clusters. In addition, countries are clustered according to factors such as leadership style preferences, autocratic or democratic, interpersonal values-conformity, recognition, and benevolence-and the like (Bass, 1990, p. 763).

One early synthesis of cross-cultural leadership studies found eight clusters roughly corresponding to geographic proximity-Arab, Near Eastern, Far Eastern, Latin (Spanish) America, Latin Europe, Nordic, and Germanic. The eighth cluster, Anglo, was far more geographically dispersed but tied together by a common language and colonial background. Nations in this cluster included Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Four countries seemed to fall outside any cluster. Brazil was too Portuguese, indigenous, and African to be part of Latin (Spanish) America. India was too Eastern and Anglo to belong to either cluster. Japan differed greatly from other Far Eastern cluster countries because of its early adoption of Western technologies.

In addition, Israel was too European and Anglo to fit in with Arab cluster countries (Ronen & Shenkar, cited in Bass, 1990, p. 764). Subsequent work also uses clustering, with some variations in the assignment of countries.

霍夫斯泰德和民族文化的维度——Hofstede and the Dimensions of National Cultures

Another scholar, Geert Hofstede, who took on the challenge of cross-cultural comparative study, argued that the comparison of leadership in different nations requires a theoretical framework. Hofstede insists that any comparison across nations of the values and attitudes related to leadership is in some way a comparison of apples to oranges. It is a fruitless effort, Hofstede remarks (extending the metaphor further), without the proper "fruitology. Hofstede initially developed his five dimensions of national cultures during a large research project into differences across managers in IBM's subsidiaries in 64 countries. Subsequent studies of students in 23 countries, elites in 19 countries, commercial airline pilots in 23 countries, up-market consumers in 15 countries, and civil service managers in 14 countries eventually refined these five dimensions. Eventually, Hofstede indexed many nations of the world on each of these dimensions.

1. Power Distance Index (PDI):

This index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more vs. less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that the followers as much as the leaders endorse a society's level of inequality. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society, and anybody with some international experience will be aware that all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others.

2. Individualism (IDV):

Individualism opposes collectivism, or the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualistic side, we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: People are expected to look after themselves and their immediate family. Collectivist societies are those in which people from birth are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts, and grandparents) that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word collectivism in this sense has no political meaning; it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one and regards all societies in the world.#p#分页标题#e#

3. Masculinity (MAS):

Masculinity, versus its opposite-femininity-refers to the distribution of roles between the genders, another fundamental issue for any society, to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive, competitive, and maximally different from women's values to modest, caring, and similar to women's values. The assertive pole has been called "masculine" and the modest, caring pole, "feminine." The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries, they are somewhat assertive and competitive but not as much as the men, hence these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI):

This index measures a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man's search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from the usual. Cultures that avoid uncertainty minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and, on the philosophical and religious level, by a belief in absolute Truth-"There can only be one Truth, and we have it." People in such countries are also more emotional and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, cultures that accept uncertainty, are more tolerant of opinions different from those they are used to. They try to have as few rules as possible and, on the philosophical and religious level, they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative and not expected to express emotions.

5. Long-Term Orientation (LTO):

This fifth dimension was identified in a study among students in 23 countries around the world using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. It can be described as dealing with Virtue regardless of Truth. Values associated with long-term orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with short-term orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's "face." Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 BCE; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucianist heritage.

GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness)

The GLOBE study resembles Hofstede's work and other preceding studies in several ways, although it differs in size. GLOBE began in October 1993 and eventually involved 127 investigators in 62 countries or regions. Questionnaires with 753 items were developed and collected from more than 17,000 middle managers in 951 organizations across three specific industries. The study borrowed cultural dimensions from some studies and added others. House and his colleagues adopted three of Hofstede's dimensions-individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance-and made two other dimensions-gender egalitarianism and assertiveness-in place of Hofstede's masculinity.

The GLOBE team also returned to the social anthropological work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) to develop a new dimension-humane orientation-and to replace Hofstede's long-term orientation with a dimension called future orientation. In addition, House and his colleagues developed two dimensions-in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism-through a factor analysis of responses to related items. GLOBE resembles other studies in its use of 10 cultural clusters, which resulted from modifying the eight cultural clusters that Ronen and Shenkar had found and then adding two more-Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Like other studies, then, GLOBE allows distinguishing among countries based on different dimensions, with substantial implications for the practice and understanding of leadership. On the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, average scores of respondents by nation varied from 2.88 to 5.37 on a scale of 7. China, Singapore, and the nations in the Germanic and Nordic clusters scored high in their desire to avoid uncertainty. They tend to formalize interactions, document agreements in contracts, keep orderly and meticulous records, make and follow rules, carefully calculate risks, and verify oral communication in writing. Latin American and Eastern European counties scored low on this dimension. Respondents from these countries indicated a preference for informality, relied on the word of someone they trusted rather than on a contract, kept informal interactions and norms, and were comfortable with ambiguity. House points out the evident utility of this information:

If individuals from high and low uncertainty avoidance cultures are aware of their differences with respect to this cultural dimension, they will more likely know what to expect from each other, and possibly be able to negotiate mutually agreeable approaches to conflict resolution, problem solving, decision making, and management practices. (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. 6)

The GLOBE study broke considerable new ground in the comparative study of leadership cultures, as well as built on previous work. It asked respondents both how the society actually practiced the dimensions ("As Is") and how the values were stated ("Should Be"). Thus, GLOBE provided two measures on each dimension within each country: The dimension as people sees it in practice and the dimension as people understand that it is supposed to be. This permits a third measurement of the leadership in each culture: the gap between the practice and the ideal value.

Thus, the GLOBE researchers suggest that not only might we distinguish one cultural cluster from another by the measure of avoidance of uncertainty, for example, but also by the gap between its practice and value. Anglo and Latin European clustered cultures have near accord on the score of the practice and value placed upon avoidance of uncertainty. Germanic and Nordic clusters score higher on the value placed on that dimension than on its practice. All other clustered cultures reported higher scores on the practice of avoidance of uncertainty than on its value.

The GLOBE team then began looking at the independent variables of cultural dimensions to explain the variation among countries on specific leadership characteristics. The clustering of these characteristics provided House and his colleagues with six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/values-based leadership, team-oriented leadership, participative leadership, humane-oriented leadership, autonomous leadership, and self-protective leadership. The valued cultural dimensions had statistically significant correlation with global leadership behaviors.

For example, performance orientation, gender egalitarianism, and humane orientation all seemed to strongly support a participative leadership style characterized by high participation and low autocracy. Conversely, participative leadership was negatively related to uncertainty avoidance and power distance. In another example, the cultural dimensions of performance orientation had a strong positive link to autonomous leadership, characterized by individualism and independence. Conversely, humane orientation and institutional collectivism exhibited strong negative links.

The GLOBE scholars were able to probe the possible correlations of cultural dimensions, as valued and practiced, with human conditions of physical and psychological health and with economic well-being. They reported a positive relationship between the practice of uncertainty avoidance and four measures of human conditions-as one went up, the other did also. Conversely, they found a negative relationship between the value of uncertainty avoidance and the same conditions; as respondents expressed a preference for rules, their measures of well-being decreased. This may suggest that development efforts may inspire a desire to avoid uncertainty, but once achieved, the culture of developed economies encourages risk (House et al., 2004, p. 630). The same held true for economic well-being-a positive association with the practice of uncertainty avoidance and a negative association with the value placed upon it.

GLOBE continued to expand its multiphase research to study data that was both qualitative and quantitative. In a more recent study, begun in the year 2000, CEOs from around the world were interviewed and responded to questions regarding their leadership style. Questions included those such as "What are your weaknesses?" "What are your strengths?" "Do you have a plan of at least five years for the future of your organization?" The responses to the questions were recorded and transcribed. To understand further the value of each question, the responses were coded according to the McClelland Motive Theory (Winter, 2002).

The motives coded were affiliation, power, responsibility, and achievement. One might naturally conclude that leaders who described themselves as powerful would score high on a power motive. However, power was not linked to authority but to a sense of belonging, affiliation with others, and achieving great things. This particular motive coding provided a qualitative description to some of the current cultural dimensions and also paralleled leadership styles in the cultural clusters around the world. A particularly interesting finding was made in Latin America where the highest motive expected was the "power" motive, whereas the data revealed a high score in affiliation. One may conclude that this result was due to the relational cultural patterns that give more importance to working relationships than to hierarchies.#p#分页标题#e#

关注文化——Concerns about Culture

The study of culture provides fascinating insights into the common elements as well as the variety of human experiences. The extensive research in this area provides rich data that invite one to make applications and generalizations. Several concerns suggest caution in doing so, however.

First, although one can generalize about a culture within certain geographic boundaries, we know there are different cultures within those boundaries as well. Juana Bordas (2007), as we pointed out earlier, talks about African American, Native American, and Latino cultures just within the United States. One might also look for variations within each of these three cultures and then, within those subcultures, discover even further distinctions. These cross-cultural studies thus illustrate the variety of cultures within a nation's boundaries. Eastern Europe, because of the number of ethnic groups within one nation's boundaries, provides a particularly salient example of why caution is needed when making generalizations. The problem is exacerbated when one moves from the national level to the clustered cultural level of analysis to find common cultural dimensions.

The second caution relates to the principle of ecological fallacy. This principle suggests that it would be an error to attribute to an individual member of a group the characteristics of the group. As a rule of thumb, the extremes within a group generally vary more than the average between groups. Thus, the tallest and shortest men and women would have a greater difference in heights than the difference between the average man and average woman. One cannot know beforehand that a specific, individual Latin American leader will avoid uncertainty less often than a specific, individual Canadian leader, whatever the profiles of their respective cultures might suggest.

The opposite also applies-one cannot make valid and accurate inferences about a whole group based on only one or two members. The sampling procedures and statistical analyses of the scholarship discussed here are intended to prevent these false or hasty generalizations. Nonetheless, discussions of culture and individuals invite the risk of stereotyping individuals because of their group and a group because of a few individuals. Culture might best be kept as a background factor used to understand a particular situation but not kept so prominent as to bias the perception of that situation.

Another concern stems from bias within the research. The respondents to Hofstede's and GLOBE's surveys were overwhelmingly managers in for-profit businesses. This research exemplifies the problem of applying generalizations from a particular group to people in other contexts-in this case, to those in politics and civic society. Within the latter contexts, as the chapters in this collection on globalization and post colonialism suggest, there may be very different views of leadership styles than in for-profit enterprises.

Another risk related to bias deals with identifying norms from one culture and applying them to another, and then distinguishing better versus worse practices. Some comparison inevitably results in cross-cultural studies. For example, in distinguishing high uncertainty avoidance as opposed to low uncertainty avoidance leadership styles, one inevitably compares the characteristics of one with another. Having given the characteristics of the first, one might then use terms such as "less" or "more." Low uncertainty avoidance leadership styles are "more informal" than high ones,

for example. Other comparisons may imply a preference and thus a deficit in one style. For example, low uncertainty avoidance leadership styles are "less concerned with orderliness and the maintenance of records," do not document the conclusions drawn in meetings, and "tend to be less calculating when taking risks" (House et al., 2004, p. 6). These measures, calibrated by the high avoidance of uncertainty dimension, describe the difference from a norm rather than the purposes those behaviors may serve. For example, it is not mentioned that to be less calculating when taking risks may reflect a greater willingness to accept the chance that conditions will change in ways beyond our ability to calculate.

Finally, and as every graduate student learns, correlation does not imply causation. Two events correlated at statistically significant levels may not have a cause and effect relationship. Ice cream sales may be correlated with drowning deaths, but they do not cause them; rather, both occur when the weather is warmer. Thus, correlating cultural dimensions with economic and human conditions does not imply that those dimensions cause the conditions. There may be many intervening variables that account for variation in both measures and for their direct and inverse relationships (see, for example, Chapter 26, "Social and Economic Development").

总结——Summary

Efforts to construct dimensions of leadership, measure them within different nations, and then compare those measures nation by nation and by cultural clusters of nations offer a treasure of findings and new questions about the national distinctions of leadership concepts and practices. They provide a starting point to search for universally desired attributes of leadership amid cultural differences. On a much more practical level, these efforts provide a place to begin to understand the cultural variations of leadership and the cultural contexts that may influence individual leaders from different countries. That understanding, qualified by the cautions we have offered, may provide a necessary foundation for collaboration to achieve mutual objectives.