1

HMEF503 3 – Comparative
Education
May 2010

Globalisation and societal culture: Redefining schooling and school

leadership in t he twenty-first century

Clive , Allan Walker . Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Interna tional

Dimmock
Ed ucation, Oxford: Oct 2000. Vol. 30, Iss. 3; pg. 303-313.

ABSTRACT This paper highlights the importance of societal culture to developing theory, policy
and practice within an increasingly globa lising educational context. It argues that tensions exist
between globalisation and societal culture and that globalisation makes the recognition of
societal cult ure and cross-cultural similarities and diffe rences more, not less, important.
Consequently, the inclusion of societal culture as a facto r in investigations covering such
themes as the curriculum, teaching and learning, le adership and school-based ma nagement is
se en as an impe rative for the future developm en t of com pa rative education . Accordingly, the
first part of the paper cla rif ies the concept of 'globalisation '. In the second part, globalisation and
societal culture are juxtaposed and the in terface between them is explored. The third part offers
a set of dime nsions by which to gauge the influence of and to compare, cu lt ures. Finally, we
illustrate our argument for greater cultural sensitivity by raising some key issues concerning
school reform and improvement.

Intro duction

There is no more appropriate time than at the beginning of a n ew millennium to take stock of a
particular field and to advocate particular tren ds and develo pments as wa ys of enhancing its
usefulness in bot h theore tical and practical terms. Such is t he case with educational
management, administration and policy. Th is paper does not, however, purport to present a
co mprehensive review along those lines. Rather, it f ocuses on a single t heme wh ich, it is
claimed, has been relatively ignored in such debates, namely, the influence of societal culture
within an increasingly globalising context on educational policy, leadership and management.
Our central argument pivots on the need for scholars in educat ional management, leade rship
and educatio nal policy at a time of globalisa tion to incorporate societal culture -conceptually,
theoretically and practically-in redefining and refining the field. At various points throug hou t our
discussion we refe r to `school leadership', `educational management' and `educational
admin istration'. We deliberately refer to all three terms since they are applied in different
co untries and universities to refer broadly to the same area of study and practice. Distinctions
between 'policy', 'leadership' and 'managem ent' are also difficu lt t o make since they are not
entirely exclusive. For example, leadership may involve policy-making and vice versa. In
addition, commentat ors even within the Anglo-American world use the terms differently. In this
paper we adopt the British inte rpretations, which refer to 'leadership' as a higher order set of
abilities such as goa l setting, visioning and motivating, while 'management' is viewed as lower
order maintena nce of performance through supervision, co-ordination and con trol. 'Policy' refers
to macro- or system-level policy.

Sp ecifically, the paper highlights the importance of societ al culture to developing theory, policy
and practice within an increasingly globalising educational conte xt. By 'globalisatio n', we mean
the tendency for similar policies and practices t o spread across polit ical, cultural an d
geograp hical boundaries. By `societal culture', we mean those enduring sets of valu es, beliefs
and p ract ices that distinguish one group of people from another. We argue t ha t globalisation
 2

tends to ignore societal culture, the latter tending to act as a mediator or filter to t he spread of
ideas and practices across th e globe, resulting in their adoption, adaptation or even rejection.
Thus in a globalising world, the recognition o f societal culture and cross-cultural similarities and
dif fe rences becomes more, not less, important. Consequ ently, the inclusion of societal culture
as a factor in investigations covering such themes as the curriculum, teaching and learning,
leadership and school-based management is seen as an imp erative for the future development
of the field.

The first part of the pape r clarifies the concept of 'globalisation'. In the secon d part, globalisation
and societal cu lture are juxtaposed and the interface between them is explored. The third part
offers a set of dimensions by which to gauge the influence of, an d to compare , cultures. Finally,
we illustra te our argument for greater cultural sensitivity by raising some key issues concerning
school reform and improvement.

In eva luating the state of educational management and administration to d at e, there would b e
co nsiderable agreement about the over-reliance placed on prescription and opinion on the one
hand, and the under-development of theory, especially empirically supported theo ry, on the
other. The theory that is acknowledged is largely An glo-- American in origin. Given the
resources available to, a nd stage of development reache d by, educators in No rth America, th e
UK and Austra lia, this is understandable. It is of concern, howeve r, that much of the theory
generat ed is ethnocentric and consequently tailored to those contexts. Moreove r, t hose
generat ing the theory make little attempt to boun d or limit their work geographically or culturally,
an aspect which is particularly disconcerting for those who work outside Ang lo-Ame rican
societies. For example , why should the principle of subsidiarity or the tenets of decentralisat io n
and school-based management be as apposite for Asian sett ings as they are deemed to b e for
An glo-American contexts, taking into account important cultural differences of power and
authority relations?

Furthermore, a substantial part of theory in educational management derives from business

management. There are at least three justif iable reasons for this: first , organisatio ns have
generic fu nctions, such as mission stating , goal setting , recruiting, mon itoring, and evaluat ing;
second, comparisons be tween types of organisations and the ir management may be instructive;
and third, governments are keen t o m ake school manag ement more business like. There are,
however, dangers in simply transferring and applying business mana gement to diverse
educa tional contexts in a less th an critical fashio n (Bottery, 1999). While sch ools may share
increasingly common ch aracteristics with businesses, in shaping and educating young people
they go beyond the rudiments of business. Unlike businesses, schools are not p rimarily in
existence to make profit . They n eed to be equally concerned with processes and outco mes,
many of which de fy easy measurement or quantificatio n. For these and other reasons, the
appropriat eness of leadership procedures and styles transferred f rom business are a t least
questionable for schools.

That schools provide e ducation and that ed uca tion is a social service is unde niable. It is
arguable, however, whether market models and co ncepts f rom the business world should be
im ported into this social service as organ ising and leadership principles. Markets, choice,
performance league tables, competition between schools and public relations all tend to
reconfigure not ions of leade rship and policy. There is evidence of loss in transposing business
management an d leadersh ip to ed ucation. For example, school principals become more
isolated from teachers and students and from the core curriculum functions of the school as
they become of fice managers focusin g on administrative issues and meeting accountabilit y
 3

expectations of cent ral bureaucracies. An administrative rather than educat ional or instructional
emphasis to the principal's leadership role is also more likely from the policy of school-b ased
management. Self-implementing policies shift major responsibilities from the central
bureaucracy to the ind ividual school without necessarily providing a commensurate increase in
resources.

The development of educational policy and practice is also dominated by AngloAmerican

initiatives. This, t oo, is understandable in that Anglo-American societ ies have a pre-em inent
position in terms of g lobal economic development, co mmunications and technology. As
developed societ ies, they p ossess the resources and ideas to innovate and to lead change.
Moreover, Anglo-American societies are advantaged by having English-increasingly accepted
as the global language-as their mothe r tongu e.

For much of the twentieth century, but particularly the seco nd half, it became apparent that th e
developing world was taking its cues mostly from Anglo-American societies. The continuation of
this phenomenon, otherwise known as globalisation, seems assured as other develop ing
co untries follow su it. Generations of comp arativists, from Sa dler onwards (Jones, 1971), have
pointed to the reasons f or cultural b orrowing. These include co lo nialism, cultural imperialism,
the overseas education of leaders, the desire of less developed societies to emulate the more
developed, a belief in educa tion as a vehicle for econom ic and social advancement,
int ernational legitimacy for p olicy fo rmulation , and closer lin ks forged by interna tional agencies,
jet travel and the elect ronic media. Comparativists have also acknowledged the benefits of
stud ying foreign systems of education, including the resu ltant improved understanding of one's
own system. There are e xceptions, however, to the phenomenon of policy borrowing associated
with globalisation. For example, the Scots and Irish have developed their own education
systems that are app reciably different from the English .

While globalisation has become an emergent phenomenon, relatively little credence has been
given to the concept of societal culture. Yet, as theory, policy and practice are t ransporte d
globally, t hey interface with the cultures of different host societies. The interaction merits
co nsideration for a number of reasons. First, as po licies such as decentra lisation and school-
based management spread from Anglo-American systems to become more globalised, what are
the implications for 'lead ership' and 'management' in the host societies? Leadership and
management may not mean the same in different societal cultures. In Western societies, for
example, leadership is seen to rest on a set of technical skills, where as in Chinese societies it is
viewed more as a process of influencing relationships and modelling what are deemed to be
'desirab le' behaviours. Will me anings and styles of leadership converge in the future, or will they
remain cu lture specific? If Anglo-American influences over globalisation increase in the future,
what are the benefits and drawbacks to such developments? Can we assume that there are
so me organisatio nal p rocedures and policies that are generically beneficial regardless of th e
cu ltural origins of such ideas? Responses to these questions will shape how school leade rship
and manageme nt are shaped in the future.

It f ollows that a key direction for educational ma nagement and school leadership in the twenty-
first century is to embrace an international, cultural and cross-cultural comparative perspective.
Elsewhere, we h ave provided a more det ailed justification for such an approach (Dimmock &
Walker, 1998a ) and have developed a framework for its applica tion (Dimmock & Walker,
1998b).
 4

Globalisation

A complex set of forces and trends is shaping the contempora ry world. The nation sta te as we
have come to know it is under threa t-politically and economically. At th e m acro leve l,
multinational corporations transcend nation states, affecting o rganisa tions and the lives of
individuals. Plants can be closed down overnig ht and jobs re-located to other countries. Ohmae
(1995) convincingly argues that the world economy is increasingly run by economic regions,
such as Silicon Valley and Hong Kong and adjacent parts of southern China, rather than by
co untries. Some also argue that globalisat ion is reinfo rced b y the growing influence of
int ernational agencies, such as The World Bank, th e IMF, and the Unit ed Nations. In addit ion,
regional conglomerations of nations, many of them t rade blocs, such as the European
Community and North Atlantic Free Trade Association, have further u nde rmined the autonom y
of the nation st ate. American ascendancy in the political and economic arenas has also given a
boost to globalisation. The fortunes of organisations and individuals are just as much directly
inf luenced by these global forces as they are by nation states.

At the same time, globalisation has resulted in a pro liferation of units sma ller than the nation
state. In o ther words, the demise of the nation sta te is accomp anied in some parts of the world
by a rise in nationa lism, as indicated in the Balkans and the setting up of a Scottish Parliament.
As Bottery (1999 ) asserts, whether the nation state is superfluous or not, "there is lit tle doubt
that the phenomenon of globa lisation has an impact upon o rganisa tions, individuals and values,
which is both greater and smaller than the nation-state . .. " (p. 300). He goes on to conclude that
prudent o rganisations and individuals will take cognisance of global forces in their decision-
making. It is also worth noting that societal cultures do n ot necessarily e qua te wit h national
boundaries or n ation states as recent tu rmoil in the Balkans illustrates.

There is little doubt that increased opportunit y for travel and communications, including the
electronic media, have provided a big impetus to globalisation. Bottery (1 999 ) citing Waters
(1995) suggests that to use the term 'globa lisat ion' does not necessarily imply plane tary-wide
acceptance. Ra ther, the term co nnotes "a broad spectrum idea, suggest ing that th ere are
issues a nd trends which transce nd an y particular nation-state, wh ich have significant potentiality
for full global effects, but which may not yet have attained this" (Bottery, 1999, p. 301).

Furthermore, globa lisa tion takes a number of forms. Waters (1995), for examp le, recognises the
political, economic and cultu ral. To these, Bo ttery (1999) adds the managerial and
environmental. It is not the purpose here to expound on each of these, but it is worth noting
so me points of relevance for educational management. Forms of political organisation be yond
the nation-state threaten concepts o f national citizenship, often an important consideration in
schoolin g and curriculum, and national sovereignty over economic affairs. The economic form of
globalisation, as manifested in trade blocs and int ernational agre ements, has the capacity t o
inf luence national economic p olicy and expenditure on education and social welfare provision,
thereby ultim ately affecting school budgets.

Managerial and cultural forms of globalisation are particularly relevant. While management
co ncepts se em g lobal in nature, the "actual p ract ice of management is context-bound , m ed iated
by the beliefs, values and aspirations of the managers and the mana ged " (Bottery, 1999, p.
303). Educationa l managers in the developed world have ove r the past two o r t hree decades
been exhorted to read management 'g urus' associated with the private sector-such as Handy,
Drucker and Peters and Waterman-the consequence of which has been the introduction of a
business terminology into educa tional management. They have also been u rged to look at
 5

practice overseas, especially the USA, but also latterly Japan, Singapore, Taiwa n and other
Asian systems, in order to identify `best practice' o n a global scale. Insid ious dangers, however,
lurk in both d irections. The first concerns the dif ferent agendas and purposes of business and
educa tional management, and the second, t he fa ilure to respect the grounding of practices in
their own cultural settings. It is t o t his la tter issue that the ne xt section turns.

Globalisation and Societal Culture

Globalisation in educational management implies the export of theory, policy and practice from
so me systems, chiefly the Anglo-American world, and their import into others, particularly non-
Western an d developing countries. More recently, signs of a reciproca l movement are apparent
as the Anglo-American systems look with interest at, and try to explain, the enviable
performance of East and South-East Asian schoo l students in mathematics and science
(Reyn olds & Farrell, 1996; Dimmock, 2000).

Importing policy re fo rms formulated elsewhere under diffe rent econ omic, po litical and cultural
co nditions presents challenges for the new host cultures. Many obse rvers not only question the
su itability of the policy reforms fo r those systems importing them , but often question their
appropriat eness for the exporting systems. Theories, ideas and practices d erived in one social
se tt ing should not be assume d valid in other social-political-cultural contexts. Societal cultures,
along with local econ omic, p olitical and religious conditions act as mediators and filters to
policies and practices imported from overseas. Consequently, policies ma y b e accepted,
adapted or rejected.

Imported policy gives it int ernational legitimacy an d allows th e focus t o switch from formulation
and adoption to implementation. However, where cultural bo rrowing is ill conceive d, t he re is a
failure to appreciate contextual conditions in the host society. In other words, the policy
formulation and adoption stages fail to act as effective filters and mediators and prob lems arise
at the implementation stage.

Our argument is not that g lobalisation is a negative pheno menon, or tha t societal culture is
unnecessarily obstructive. Rather, it is that the t ransfe r and mobility of theory, policy and
practice between systems needs to be more `culture sensit ive'. Neither should our argument for
cu ltural sensitivity assume that cultures are static or passive entit ies always requiring the
adaptation of imported policy an d pract ice. Cultures themselves are dynamic and changing, and
schools as centres of knowled ge organisation and transmission play a vital part in that process.
For example, cultural transformation m ay focus on lessening an autho ritarian and male-centred
orientation to leadership and management.

Nonetheless, the argument for greater cultural sensitivity in a globalising educa tional context is
robust. If policy, theory and practice are t o be made more culture sensitive, the n the process
needs t o be gin at the formulation rather than a t the implementation stage. In te rnational advisers
and consulta nts as well as policy-makers, especially those in the host societies, bear
responsibility for making this happe n. A mo re culture-sensitive approach requires a better
understanding of culture and cross-cultural similarity and difference. Accordingly, the next
section addresses this issue.
 6

Societal Culture: key dimensions

In enabling policy-makers, researchers and practitioners to develop mo re cu lture-sensitive

approaches, it is necessary, first, to un derstand what culture is, and second , to define it in
measurable terms so that cross-cultural comparisons can b e accurately and validly made. In
relation to the first, we take 'cultu re' to mean the values, customs, tradit ions and ways of living
which distinguish o ne group of pe ople from another. Th is definit ion aligns with that of Hofstede
(1991), a noted authority on cultu re, who defines it as, "patterns of thinking, f eeling an d acting"
underpinning "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one
group or category of peop le from another" (pp. 4-5). The "collective pro gramming of the m ind"
refers to sh ared beliefs, values, and practices of a group of people, whet he r that group be a
society, nation state, or organisation. We agree with Hofstede that culture is learned, not
inhe rited, and that societal and organisational cultures are q ualitatively different concepts.

In reg ard to the measurem en t of cultures, we agree with Hofstede (1991 ) when he advoca tes
the developme nt of cultu ral dimensions as ways o f describing, measuring and comparing
cu ltures (see Dimmock & Walker, 1998a, 1998b). We define cultural dimensions as "core axes
around which significant sets of values, beliefs and practices cluster". Despite their usefulness,
however, we agree wit h Hofstede's (1994) cautionary re marks about dimensions, when he
claims that the same limitations apply t o them as to culture itself: "They are also constructs that
sh ould not be reified. They do not 'exist'; they are tools for analysis which m ay or may not cla rif y
a situation" (p . 40 ). Although the dimensions are prese nted as pairs of alternatives, to view them
as polarities along a uni-dimensiona l scale, as Hofstede tends to, is too simplist ic and co uld
lead to serious misconceptions (Dimmock & Walke r, 1998b).

Hofstede's cultural dimensions have also been crit icised on other grounds (Child, 1981; Trice &
Be yer, 19 93). There is some doubt about t he grounding o f his studies in the conte xt of each
society studied, and concern about the representativeness of the IBM employees sam pled.
Ot her criticisms focus on th e narrow range of fou r or five values used; the appropriateness of
using q uestionnaires to capture comple x values; the changing nature of societies into
multicultural communities; a nd the dated findings after 20 years. Two dimensions in pa rticular
are troublesome: `masculinity-feminin ity' presents a problem of terminology and the re is
ambivalence in anothe r dimension termed `uncertain ty avoidance '.

For these and other reasons, we decided to develop o ur own cross-cultural f ramework based on
a synthesis of other models (see Hofstede, 1991; Trompen aars & Hampden-- Turner, 1997;
Walker & Dimmock, 1999). In place of `masculinity-femininity', for example, our model adopts
'aggression-consideration', since either or both of these qualities ma y be demonstrated by m en
and women. Our mode l is developmental and we see its further refinement as our work
progresses. For example, t he gende r dimension and the relative power and inf luence of men
and women in different societal cultures is not sufficiently represented. At the present stage, the
model comprises six cultural dimensions, as follows:

Power-distributed/Power-concentrat ed: The first dimension acknowledg es that power is either

distributed more equally among the various levels of a society or concentra te d among the few.
In societies whe re power is widely distributed, for example, through decent ralisation and
institutio nalised democracy, inequity is treated as undesirab le and every effort is made to
reduce it where possible. In societies where power is commonly concentrated in the hands of
the few, inequ ities are often accepted and legitim ised. People in high power concentrated
 7

societies, such as those of Asia, t end to accept unequal dist ributions of power more than t hose
in power distributed societies, such as Anglo-American.

Group-o riented/Self-oriented: The second dimension gauges whether people within a given
cu lture are focused on self or on their place within a gro up. In self-oriented cultures, relations
are fairly lo ose and relational t ies tend to be based on self-interest. Peop le in such societies
primarily regard themse lves as individuals first, and members of a group, second. They are
more independent and self-reliant. In group-oriented cu ltures, ties between peop le are tight,
relationships are firmly structured and individual needs a re subservient t o collective needs.
Group-o riented cultures value harmony, face-saving, filial piety and equality of reward
distribution among peers-va lues associat ed with Asia n socie ties. Status is traditiona lly de fined
by facto rs such as age, sex, kinship, educational standing, or form al organisational position. In
se lf-oriented cultures, people are judged and status ascribed more in line with individual
performance or what has been accomplished individually-values associat ed with Anglo-
America n socie ties.

Conside ration/Aggression: In what we have called aggression cultures, achievement is

stressed, competition dominates and conflicts a re resolved through the exercise of power and
assert iveness. School no rms are set by the best students, the system rewards academic
achievement and failure at school is seen as serious; in an organisational context,
assert iveness is taken as a virtue; selling oneself, decisiveness and emphasis on career are all
va lued. In consideration societies, relat ionship is e mphasised, as are solidarit y and resolution of
co nflicts by compromise and negotiation; at school, norms tend to be set by the average
students, system rewards reflect students' social adaptation an d modesty, and fa ilure at school
is taken as unfortunate but not dire. There is less of an Asian/ Anglo-Ame rican divide on this
dimension.

Proactivism/Fatalism: Our fourth dimension reflects the p roactive or 'we can change things
around here' a ttitude in some cultures, and the willingness to accept things as the y are , a
fatalistic perspective, in others. It addresses how dif ferent societies and cultures react to and
manage uncertainty a nd change in social situations. In proactive societies, people tend to
believe th at they have at least some control over situations and over change. They believe that
people 'make their own luck' and, therefore, accept uncertainty without undue stress, seeking to
take advantage of any opportunities associated with change. They are tolerant of different
opin ions and are not excessively threatened b y unpredictability. In fatalistic cu ltures, on the
other hand, people b elieve 'what is meant to be , will be'. Uncertainty is often viewed as
psycholog ically u ncomfortable and disruptive , and people seek to reduce it and t o limit risks by
hanging on to traditional wa ys of doing things and by inflexibly ret aining rules and dogmas that
breed orthodoxy. Generative/Replicative: This dimension recognises that some cultures are
predisposed toward innovation , or t he generation of new ideas and methods, while other
cu ltures are inclined to replicate o r to adopt ideas and approaches from elsewhere. In
generat ive cu ltures pe ople tend to value the generation of knowledge, new ideas and ways of
working. They are more likely to seek creative solutions to problems, to develop policies and
ways o f operating which are o riginal and unique thereby creating new knowledge, new
inventions and approaches. In replicative cultures, on the other hand, people are more likely t o
adopt innovations, ideas and inventions develop ed else where. Wh ile these sometim es underg o
partial adaptation, more often, they are replicated in toto, with litt le consideration of alignmen t to
the indigenous cult ural context.
 8

Lim ited relationship/Holistic relationship: This dimension gauges the characteristics an d

im portance of interpe rsonal relationships. In limited relationship cultures, interactions and
relationships tend to be determined by rules applied equ ally t o everyone. For example, objective
crite ria are applied to decide a promotion regardless o f the identity of possible candidates.
Relationships a re prescribed by agreed formal rules governing the specific sit ua tion (business
or contractual). In holistic cult ures on the other hand, greate r attention is given to relationship
obligations (for example, kinship, patronage and friendship) than to impartially applied rules (see
Walker & Dimmock, 1999).

Conclusion: examp les of cultu ral sensitivity

We argue that the foregoing dimensions of societal cu lture help facilitate cultural sensitivity
when policy, theo ry an d practice are transported b etween educat ion systems. In concluding, we
briefly illustrate our argument by p osing some issues based on these cultural dime nsions.

In the global push for school-based management and decentralisation, a reconfiguration in the
pattern of decision-making, responsibility and power in favour o f principals, teache rs an d
parents is fo reshadowed. Predictably, societal cultures in which power is distributed more
equally, e.g. Anglo -American societies, would adjust rather more successfully to school-based
management than societal cultures in which powe r is concentrated, such as Chinese
co mmunities like Hong Kong and Singapore. This may partly explain th e different forms in which
school-based m anag ement manifests itself-- in some societies, simply reinforcing the power of
the principal, while in others leading to more genuine participation of teachers and parents.

In many education systems, a trend towards individualising curricula, teaching and learning is
discernible. While such an appro ach may be harm on ious with cultures emphasising self-
orientation, its suitability for group-oriented cultures may be legitimately questioned. Broadly,
Hofstede (1991) identifies Anglo-American cultu res as individualist an d most Asian cu ltures as
group orien ted or collectivist. Conversely, collabora tive learn ing is generally acknowledged as
an effective teaching-learning method, bu t are students in group-oriented cultures more
co mfo rtable with its adoption than students in self-oriented cultures?

A central tenet of the restructuring of curricu lum and pedagogy in many school systems is that
students accep t more personal responsibility for th eir learning. Accompanying this phenomenon
is the espousal of goa l set ting at the individual level and school development planning a t th e
organisationa l level. Each of these tenets assumes the acceptance of responsibility for shap ing
the future, a capacity associated with proactivism fo und in Anglo-American cultures. In cultures
displaying st rong elements of 'fatalism', where control is seen to be in the hands of others or
outside human realms altogether, it is less likely that these tenets and behaviours are as
appropriat e.

A further characteristic of curricular restructuring is the emphasis placed on cre ativity, problem-
so lving and higher-order th inking skills. Recent school curricular reforms in Anglo-Am erican
societies have given prominence to these aspects, linking them with skills needed by future
workers in an information society. The Asian economic crisis beginning in October 1997
stopped t he phenomenal rate o f econom ic growth achieved by th e so-called Asian 'tiger'
economies in its tracks. It became apparent that economies such as Hong Kong needed a
technologically skilled workforce capable of susta ining a qualitat ively different economic
structure in the future. While societies such as the USA have cultures (and to an extent school
cu rricula) conducive to creativity-they a re what we call 'generative'-some in East Asia are more
 9

renowned for their replicat io n and rote learning. Although these school systems are successful
in producing high achieving students in mathematics and science, they are less likely to
cu ltivate creativit y in their young people.

Finally, in the pursuit of quality schools and schooling, the part played by competent an d
effective teachers is generally acknowledged. In pursuit of this go al, it is an accepted principle in
An glo-American cultures that the appointmen t and promotion of staff be on the basis of merit, as
gauged by performance against some measurable criteria. AngloAmerican societ ies conform to
what we call `limited relationship' cultures; t ha t is, decisions taken specifically on the issues at
stake. By contrast, in Chinese cu ltures, where more ho listic considerat ions of relationship hold
sway, personnel decisions may be made as much on the basis of connections as on merit. For
example, a teacher may be appointed because a trusted friend of the school may speak h ighly
of her loyalty, and loyalty is seen as a desirable qualit y leading to comm itmen t and eventually
performance. This more holistic perspective may make the attainment of openness with respect
to transparency of selection or promotion criteria more difficult than in Anglo-American `lim ited
relationship' cultures.

In conclusion, we do n ot claim that societal cultu re is the only mediating influe nce on globalise d
trends in educatio n policy, theory and pract ice. No r is it without conceptual and empirical
dif ficulties. Indeed, culture itself is af fected by globalisation. Thus it is misleading to see culture
as simply a reactive and m ediating phenomenon when it too is subject to change from
globalisation. How the t ension between the two , globalisation and societal culture, is resolved
will predictab ly vary according to their relative strengths in particular societies. Projecting into
the future, perhaps the best scenario would be that each society demonstrates capability of
transforming globalised policies and pract ices in culturally sensitive ways that respect the
int egrity of its indigenous culture while allowing room for change and development. In these
ways and f or these reasons, we see societ al culture as an important and overlooked factor in
the study of schooling and school management. Importantly, we believe that the incorporation of
societal culture into educational policy, resea rch and practice will significant ly enrich,
co ntextualise and refine our field.

Acknowledgement

We wish to acknowledge the support of the Research Grants Council (RGC) of Hong Kon g for
its support of this Project through the Earmarked Grant (CUHK 4327/98H). The aut ho rs also
wish to express their appreciation to the Hong Kong Institute o f Educational Resea rch (HKIER)
for their support of the Project.

Reference

BOTTERY, M. (1999) Global forces, na tional mediations and the management of educational
institutio ns, Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), pp. 299-312.
CHILD, J. (1981) Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of
organisations, in: L. CUMMINGS & B. SHAW (Eds) Research in Organizational Beh
aviour,
Vo l.3 (Greenwich, CT, JAI
Press).
DIMMOCK, C. (2000) Designing the Learning-centred School: a cross-cultural perspective
(London , Falmer Press).
DIMMOCK, C. & WALKER, A. (19 98a ) Towards comparative education: the case for a
cross-
cu ltural, schoolbased approach, Journal of Educational Admin istration, 36(4), pp. 37 9-401.
 10

DIMMOCK, C. BL WALKER, A. (1 998b) Comparative educa tional administra tion: Developing

across-cultural conceptual f ramework, Educational Adm inistration Qua rterly, 34(4), pp. 558-5 95.
HOFSTEDE, G. H. (1991) Cultu res and Organizations: software of the mind (London,
McGraw
Hill).
HOFSTEDE, G. H. (1994) Cultu ral constraints in management theo ries, Internationa l Review of
Strategic Management, 5, pp. 27-48.
JONES, P. (1 971) Comparative education: purpose an d method (St Lucia, University of
Queensland Press).
OHMAE, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State: the rise of regional econ om ies (New York, The
Free Press).
REYNOLDS, D. BL FARRELL, S. (1996) World's Ap art: a review of internation al surveys
of
educa tional achievement involving England (OFSTED (Office for Stand ards in Education),
London, Her Majesty's Sta tionery Office).
TRICE, H. RC BEYER, J. M. (1993) The Cultures of Work Organizations (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ,
Prentice Hall).
TROMPENAARS, F. BC HAMPDEN-TURNER, C. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture, 2nd
edn.
(London , Nicholas Brealey).
WALKER, A. & DIMMOCK, C. (19 99) A cross-cultural app roach to the study of
educational
leadership: an emerging framework, Journal of School Leadership, 9(4), pp. 321-348.
WATERS, M. (1995) Globalization (London, Routledge).

Author Affiliation

CLIVE DIMMOCK, Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia

AL LAN WALKER, Chinese University o f Hong
Kong
Author Affiliation

Correspondence: Clive Dimmock, Grad uate School of Education, The University of Western
Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6907.