Note On Culture PDF

conceptual note 4-386-265
October 4, 2018
John Branch
Note on Culture
In anthropology, culture is often defined as the sum total of a society. Indeed, it is thought that if you
put a group of people together, inevitably they will begin to construct things in common: behaviors, physical
objects, greetings, even worldview. It is this holistic, panoramic perspective on culture that anthropologists
attempt to capture with their principle research method of ethnography. Combining the Greek words ἔθνος
(ethnos) which means folk, people, or nation, and γράφω (grapho) which means to write, ethnography
is the systematic and comprehensive study and documentation of a society. It calls on researchers to ‘go
native’, immersing themselves in the society, often for many years, in order to appreciate the magnitude
and nuances of culture.
In sociology (another social science which concerns itself with culture), culture is defined more as the
behavioral guidelines of a society. That is to say, culture provides the rulebook which steers how members
of a society ought to behave. Sociologists recognize that there is variability in behavior among members of
a society. But they argue that culture provides a kind of pressure on these members to behave in a certain
way. Sociologists also rely on ethnography and other qualitative research methods, including participant
observation, interviews, and focus groups.
Nothing can replace the experience of being immersed in another society for an extended period of
time. Indeed, anthropologists and sociologists alike would argue that to understand culture, it is imperative
to live it. But international managers rarely, if ever, have the same luxury of time as anthropologists
and sociologists. Consequently, they most often become ‘armchair anthropologists’, relying on cultural
frameworks which provide a kind of cultural distillation. This note introduces several of these cultural
frameworks.
A caveat: most proponents of the ethnographic tradition hold these cultural frameworks in contempt,
arguing that their reductionism trivializes and disregards the enormity of culture, and dismisses its subtlety.
From a more practical perspective, these cultural frameworks can also give international managers a false
sense of security when operating in other societies by suggesting that a simple list of cultural dimensions
will enable them to avoid all cross-cultural pitfalls.
Published by WDI Publishing, a division of the William Davidson Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan.
© 2018 John Branch. This conceptual note was written by John Branch, Clinical Assistant Professor of Business Administration at the
University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. It was prepared as a basis for class discussion and is not intended to illustrate either
effective or ineffective handling of a situation. This conceptual note should not be considered criticism or endorsement and should not
be used as a source of primary data.
Unauthorized reproduction and distribution is an infringement of copyright. Contact us for permissions: Permissions@WDIpublishing.com or 734-615-9553
Note on Culture 4-386-265
These cultural frameworks, therefore, ought not to be accepted as doctrine, but instead ought to be
considered the starting points of a heuristic process in which you develop your own understanding of
another society through careful observation and mindful interaction. Indeed, these frameworks can be
regarded as keyholes which provide a glimpse into culture, but which also leave much to be discovered.
Anthropological Cultural Frameworks
A common thread among the different branches of anthropology (cultural anthropology, social
anthropology, linguistic anthropology, biological anthropology, and even archeology) is that culture is the
manifestation of collective social interaction. In plain language, culture results from people living together.
For example, consider the shared beliefs, rituals, and sayings which develop among university students not
long after they move into the same dormitory.
Franz Boas, who is sometimes considered the father of modern anthropology, rejected the prevailing
anthropological notion of the late 19th century that all societies were evolving through stages of civilization,
a notion which was steeped in racism and Euro-centricity. Instead, he argued that the world is replete
with unique societies, each of which ought to be studied on its own and appreciated for its own cultural
peculiarities. This cultural relativism (as it became known) also led Boas to reject the possibility of cross-
cultural generalizations.
Over time, however, ethnographic studies of different societies around the world have led many
anthropologists to posit that there are common cultural dimensions across societies, despite societal
differences. The result is a number of anthropological cultural frameworks which hold that all societies—a
drug addict community in inner city Chicago, a tribe in the Amazonian jungle, or a football hooligan gang
in suburban London—are the same in terms of their cultural make-up. The following cultural framework, for
example, suggests that all societies are comprised of nine cultural dimensions:
1. Communication systems: language, symbols, gestures

2. Metaphysics: religion, superstitions, beliefs
3. Technologies and transformations: processes, methods, physical objects
4. Politics: governance structures, systems, power
5. Social traditions: greetings, hierarchies, customs
6. Economics: production, consumption, resources
7. Kinship: family structure, relationships, lineage
8. Aesthetics: beauty, style, grace
9. Education: knowledge, pedagogy, schooling
Other anthropological cultural frameworks use different terminology and propose different numbers of
cultural dimensions. But the underlying logic remains the same; after time, any group of people will come
to share a common reality. That is to say, they will have the same culture.
Martin Gannon
As noted previously, ethnography requires the luxury of time which international managers can seldom
afford. And cultural frameworks are often viewed as reductionist in nature, distilling society to a limited
number of cultural dimensions. In the early 1990s, Martin Gannon introduced a kind of compromise to a
full-blown ethnographic study (but still with a hint of reductionism). It draws on the notion of a cultural
2
metaphor which, according to Gannon, is an “institution, phenomenon, or activity with which most citizens
in each national culture identify cognitively or emotionally and through which it is possible to describe the
culture and its frames of reference in depth.”1 It is wine for the French, the sauna for Finns, or opera for the
Italians. A cultural metaphor, Gannon argued, enables outsiders to gain a richer and subtler understanding
of cultural differences, in comparison to traditional cultural frameworks.
The first edition of Gannon’s book, Understanding Global Cultures, covered 17 nations and expanded
to cover 34 nations in the sixth edition. His chapter on Germany, for example, draws on the metaphor of
the symphonic orchestra to reveal German culture. Consider the diversity of the musical instruments in an
orchestra which, Gannon argued, alludes to the geographic and historic variation among Germany’s länder,
or states. The strict positioning of orchestral instruments, he continued, reflects Germans’ penchant for
rules and formality. And the precision and synchronization which are required for symphonic music, Gannon
concluded, parallel the Germanic notions of control, order, and systems.2
Sociological Cultural Frameworks
The focus of sociology switches from culture as the manifestations of society, to culture as the
mechanisms of society. Sociologists key in on the structures, workings, and processes of a society, in an
attempt to understand that which makes it tick. This sociological sentiment is captured in the colloquial
definition of culture as “the way we do things around here”. A slightly more serious definition, that culture
is a society’s operating system, echoes this sentiment, and also underlines that sociology aims to uncover
the normative effect of culture in society.
This normative effect can be understood by viewing society like a Gaussian (or normal) curve. Indeed,
a society is not monolithic. On the contrary, there is variation in any group of people. Culture, therefore, is
akin to the mean, median, or mode of the society—its measure of central tendency. It is not an absolute
of a society, but the inclination of its members. Consequently, when members of a society veer too far from
the central tendency, there is pressure on them to be “normal”.
Over the years, various sociological cultural frameworks have been created which attempt to capture
this notion of cultural tendencies. Presented below are several popular sociological cultural frameworks
from Edward T. Hall, Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars, and The GLOBE Project. It is important to remember,
however, that cultural tendencies are just that. There will always be people in every society who deviate
from the norm. But in general, cultural tendencies will point you in the correct direction. It is also important
to note that cultural tendencies are relativistic. That is to say, cultural tendencies are neither good nor bad;
they are just different. The scales which these cultural frameworks often use in order to array the cultural
tendencies of different societies make no judgements. On the contrary, they encourage you to recognize and
appreciate cultural differences by anchoring the cultural tendencies of your own society.
Edward T. Hall
Edward T. Hall was a cultural anthropologist whose Ph.D. dissertation focused on the Navajo and
Hopi tribes of North America. Following World War II, however, Hall began working at the Foreign Service
Institute, the U.S. government’s primary center for teaching and training American diplomats and other
foreign service employees. His work there explored how communication differed across societies, and
consequently he is often considered the founder of intercultural communications.
In his first book, The Silent Language3 (1959), Hall identified different approaches to time across
different societies. He coined the terms polychronic time and monochronic time for opposing approaches to
3
time across societies. Polychronic time is an approach to time in which time is more fluid, without a focus
on a single activity or event. In contrast, monochronic time suggests that time is more rigid and segmented,
with things being completed one at a time. Exhibit 1 summarizes the two extremes.
Exhibit 1
Polychronic Time versus Monochronic Time
Polychronic Time Monochronic Time
Do many things simultaneously Do one thing at a time
Can be easily distracted and manage interruptions well Concentrate on the job
Consider an objective to be achieved, if possible Take time commitments seriously
Are high context and already have information Are low context and need information
Are committed to people and human relationships Are committed to the job
Change plans often and easily Adhere religiously to plans
Are more concerned with those who are closely related, Are concerned about not disturbing others; follow rules
than with privacy of privacy and consideration
Show great respect for private property; seldom borrow
Borrow and lend things often and easily
or lend
Base promptness on the relationship Emphasize promptness
Have strong tendency to build lifetime relationships Are accustomed to short term relationships
Source: Bluedorn, Allen C., et al. “How Many Things Do You like to Do at Once? An Introduction to Monochronic and Polychronic Time.” The Executive, vol. 6, no. 4, Nov. 1992,
pp. 17–26.
In Mexico, for example, society leans toward polychronic time. Indeed, for Mexicans, time is considered
more fluid (see Exhibit 2). This fluidity is captured best in the word mañana which literally means “tomorrow”
but which also colloquially means “later”. Mexicans, therefore, do not embrace the time-is-money mentality
of many other societies. Or, as some say, Americans live to work, but Mexicans work to live. It is imperative,
therefore, to respect Mexicans’ sense of time and traditions. If your natural tendency is to speak quickly, for
example, or if you have a forceful or sharp tone of voice, become aware of the ways in which you might be
perceived by Mexicans. Indeed, be sensitive to the pace and tone which are used in Mexico.
In his second book, The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private,4 Hall coined the
term proxemics to refer to the study of the ways in which people conceptualize and use space. Proxemics are
culturally-bound, and recognize that different societies have different cultural tendencies when it comes
to space. On a side note, Hall’s work with his colleagues at the Foreign Service Institute resulted in the
development of haptics (the study of touch), kinesics (the study of body movement), and vocalics (the study
of paralanguage).
Hall studied the space around people, and identified four distinct spatial boundaries: intimate, personal,
social, and public (see Exhibit 3). He theorized that all societies have these spatial boundaries, but that
their radii, the ways in which they are governed, and their meanings will differ. For example, in Saudi Arabia
it is unacceptable for a man to enter an elevator which is occupied by an unrelated woman, whereas in
China, it is not uncommon to have 100 men and women crammed into a bus which was designed for only
40 people.
4
Exhibit 2
Approaches to Time in Various Countries
Country Polychronic (20)
versus Monchronic (1)
Austria 1
Belgium 8
Canada 4
Denmark 3
Finland 3
France 9
Germany 1
Italy 15
Mexico 18
Netherlands 7
Norway 3
Portugal 16
Spain 17
Sweden 2
U.K. 4
U.S.A. 2
All Countries 6.1
Source: Hall, Edward J., The Silent Language. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1959.
In his third book, Beyond Culture,5 Hall identified the role of context in intercultural communications.
More specifically, he posited that different cultures rely more or less on context when communicating (see
Exhibit 4). A high context society, according to Hall, is one in which understanding relies heavily on the
unspoken. Indeed, much of an interaction is implied or communicated indirectly. High context societies,
therefore, place more of an emphasis on relationships. Non-verbal communication is important, and skill
at reading body language and facial gestures is a must. In contrast, a low context society is one in
which things are made explicit. The meaning is in the message. Low context societies tend to be specific.
Communication is detailed and precise, and nothing is left unspoken. And people are often less adept at
“reading the situation”.
According to Hall, the Japanese are among the highest context communicators in the world. Indeed,
they often do not say that which they actually mean. Communication tends to be indirect, subtle, and
presented in a diplomatic and non-confrontational way. Meaning is conveyed through nonverbal forms of
communication, or by less-explicit verbal messages. The Japanese listen more than they speak, and do not
share personal details. They defer to the group, rather than insert their own opinions.
5
Exhibit 3
Spatial Boundaries
Source: Hall, Edward J., The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private, London, England: Bodley
Head, 1966.
Exhibit 4
Communication Context in Various Countries
Country High Context (16)
versus Low Context (1)
Austria 5
Belgium 6
Canada 3
Denmark 4
Finland 4
France 14
Germany 1
Italy 14
Mexico 15
Netherlands 6
Norway 4
Portugal 14
Spain 14
Sweden 4
U.K. 5
U.S.A. 3
All Countries 6.4
Source: Hall, Edward J. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1976
6
Exhibit 5
Hofstede’s Five Cultural Tendencies of Various Countries
Country Power Distance Individualism (1 Uncertainty Masculinity (1 = Long-Term

(1 = low power = collective, 100 Avoidance (1 = low, 100 = high) Orientation (1 =
distance, 100 = individual) low, 100 = high) low, 100 = high)
= high power
distance)
Austria 11 55 70 79
Belgium 65 75 94 59
Canada 39 80 48 52 23
Denmark 18 74 23 16
Finland 33 63 59 26
France 68 71 86 43
Germany 35 67 65 66 31
Italy 50 76 75 70
Mexico 81 30 82 69
Netherlands 55 80 63 14 44
Norway 31 69 50 8
Portugal 63 27 94 31
Spain 57 51 86 42
Sweden 31 71 29 5 33
U.K. 35 89 35 66 25
U.S.A. 40 91 46 62 29
All Countries 36 43 51 50 45
Source: “Country Comparison Tool.” Hofstede Insights, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/.
Geert Hofstede
Geert Hofstede is a Dutch social psychologist and Professor Emeritus of Organizational Anthropology
and International Management at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands.6 He is best known for
his pioneering research at IBM in the late 1970s in which he studied the tension between the (powerful)
IBM corporate culture and the (more powerful, as it turns out) national cultures of the employees at
different IBM offices around the world. The research identified five cultural tendencies: 1. power distance,
2. individualism, 3. uncertainty avoidance, 4. masculinity, and 5. long-term orientation (see Exhibit 5 for
the five cultural tendencies of various countries).
Power distance measures the authority which one level of society has over another. It is not about
hierarchy per se, but about the direct control which some members of a society wield over other members
in the society. Canada, for example, has a relatively low power distance society, whereas India, with its
caste system, has a relatively high power distance society. Individualism assesses the cultural tendency
towards the individual versus the collective. Consider the differences between individualist Hong Kong
and collectivist Mainland China, for example. Uncertainty avoidance focuses on the level of risk which is
acceptable in society. Koreans, for example, are risk averse; Britons accept risk quite readily. Masculinity
refers to a society’s approach to competition. Masculine societies are competitive and aggressive; feminine
societies are nurturing and more likely to compromise. Slovakia is one of the world’s most masculine
societies, whereas Norway is one of the world’s most feminine societies. And long-term orientation captures
7
society’s approach to time. The Taiwanese, for example, tend to have a long-term orientation, whereas
Russians are all about the “here and now”.
Fons Trompenaars
Fons Trompenaars, like his compatriot Hofstede, developed a sociological cultural framework for
understanding both organizations and nations. His framework shares some similarities with the Hofstede
framework, but consists of seven cultural tendencies. In 1997, with co-author Charles Hampden-Turner,
Trompenaars converted the framework into a book—Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in
Global Business—which became a best-selling guide to cross-cultural leadership.7 Exhibit 6 describes the
seven tendencies.
As an example, Swedish society can be described as universalist, more collectivist, neutral, achievement-
oriented, specific, sequential, and more outer-directed. Swedes, therefore, would argue that it is the rules
of Swedish society which give freedom by preventing people from deliberating endlessly over dilemmas.
Likewise, they believe that questioning the rules increases uncertainty, rather than helping to cope with it.
For Swedes, rules allow people to free their mind and imagination for more important cognitive activities.
This is counter-intuitive to the American logic, which holds that freedom comes from the absence of rules.
The GLOBE Project

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (or GLOBE) Project is the largest cross-
cultural research effort which has been completed to date. Conceived in 1991 by the late Professor Robert
House of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the Globe Project set out to understand
the cultural differences in leadership, organizational practices, and economic competitiveness. It relied on
a network of more than 170 researchers in 62 nations who collected data from more than 17,000 managers
across three major industries: financial services, food processing, and telecommunications.8
Exhibit 6
Trompenaar’s Seven Cultural Tendencies
Source: Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Global Culture, 2nd
Edition. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. 1998.
8
Like both the Hofstede and Trompenaars sociological cultural frameworks, the GLOBE Project identified
a set of cultural tendencies which are common to organizational and national cultures. The GLOBE Project
considers nine cultural tendencies (although several correlate directly to those of both the Hofstede and
Trompenaars frameworks):
1. Performance orientation: the extent to which a society encourages and rewards innovation, high
standards, excellence, and improvement
2. Uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which a society employs rules, structures, and systems to
alleviate risk
3. Humane orientation: the extent to which a society encourages and rewards fairness, generosity,
caring, and kindness
4. Institutional collectivism: the extent to which institutions encourage and reward collective
action
5. In-group collectivism: the extent to which individuals express cohesion in their organizations
6. Assertiveness: the extent to which members of a society are confrontational and aggressive
7. Gender egalitarianism: the extent to which a society minimizes gender inequality
8. Future orientation: the extent to which members of a society engage in future-oriented activities
such as planning and investing
9. Power distance: the extent to which a society endorses differences in authority
The GLOBE Project also identified the different ways in which leadership is conceptualized in different
societies. The researchers explored 112 leadership characteristics such as modesty and autonomy. These 112
characteristics were then reduced to six leadership styles:
1. Charismatic/value-based style: emphasizes high standards, inspires with vision, holds people
accountable
2. Team-oriented style: instills pride, rewards collaboration, values cohesion
3. Participative style: delegates responsibility, values input, encourages equality
4. Humane style: nurtures people, provides support, emphasizes well-being
5. Self-protective style: develops rules, follow regulations, protects group
6. Autonomous style: values the individual, encourages independence, focuses on self
The GLOBE Project has generated significant research results, not least because of the sheer size of the
database which offers seemingly unlimited avenues for exploration. Numerous articles have been published
from the data, and two major books on the Project are available: Culture, Leadership, and Organizations;
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies9 and Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies.10
9
Endnotes
1 Gannon, Martin J, Edwin A. Locke, Amit Gupta, Pino Audia, and Amy L. Kristof-Brown, “Cultural Metaphors as Frames of Reference
for Nations: A Six-Country Study.” International Studies of Management & Organization. 35:4 (2005/2006), pp. 37-47.
2 Gannon, Martin, Understanding Global Cultures, 6th edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2015.
3 Hall, Edward J., The Silent Language. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1959.
4 Hall, Edward J., The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private, London, England: Bodley Head, 1966.
5 Hall, Edward J. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1976.
6 Geert Hofstede. https://geerthofstede.com/landing-page/. Accessed 6 Mar. 2018.
7 Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Global Culture, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.
1998.
8 The GLOBE Project. http://globeproject.com/. Accessed 6 Mar. 2018.
9 House, Robert J.; Paul J. Hanges; Mansour Javidan; Peter W. Dorfman; & Vipin Gupta (Eds.). Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations; The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage Pulications, 2004.
10 Chhokar, Jagdeep S., Felix C. Brodbeck and Robert J. House (Eds.), Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of
In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. Hove, England: Psychology Press, 2007.
10
Established at the University of Michigan in 1992, the William Davidson Institute
(WDI) is an independent, non-profit research and educational organization focused on
providing private-sector solutions in emerging markets. Through a unique structure
that integrates research, field-based collaborations, education/training, publishing,
and University of Michigan student opportunities, WDI creates long-term value for
academic institutions, partner organizations, and donor agencies active in emerging
markets. WDI also provides a forum for academics, policy makers, business leaders, and
development experts to enhance their understanding of these economies. WDI is one
of the few institutions of higher learning in the United States that is fully dedicated to
understanding, testing, and implementing actionable, private-sector business models
addressing the challenges and opportunities in emerging markets.

Note On Culture PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Note On Culture PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

conceptual note 4-386-265

Anthropological Cultural Frameworks

1. Communication systems: language, symbols, gestures

Sociological Cultural Frameworks

Country Power Distance Individualism (1 Uncertainty Masculinity (1 = Long-Term

Source: “Country Comparison Tool.” Hofstede Insights, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/.

The GLOBE Project

Potrebbero piacerti anche