论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This article examines the relationship between culture and management， reviews some of the value differences of various nations， and relates these cultural dimensions to the business settings to analyze their effect on the practice of management in an international environment.
【Key words】culture； cultural factor； value； attitude； management
【作者簡介】董佳文（1978- ），女，汉族，浙江绍兴人，上海立达职业技术学院基础与外语学院，助教，硕士研究生，研究方向为商务英语研究。
Introduction
Today’s business world is increasingly global. And the real challenge at present， for the manager， is “developing the ability of management from different countries and cultures to think and work together ― a primary factor for the success of global organizations.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 179） This challenge exists because even the conception of management can be viewed differently from culture to culture. Hofstede states that management in the American sense “refers not only to the process but also to the managers as a class of people. Members of this class carry a high status. In the United States， the manager is a cultural hero.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 179） and in the Chinese view “Overseas Chinese American enterprises lack almost all characteristics of modern management. They tend to be small， cooperating for essential functions with other small organizations through networks based on personal relations. They are family owned， without the separation between ownership and management typical in the West， or even in Japan and Korea…Decision making is centralized in the hands of one dominant family member， but other family members may be given new ventures to try their skill on. They are low-profile and extremely cost-conscious， applying Confucian virtues of thrift and persistence. Their size is kept small by the assumed lack of loyalty of non-family employees， who， if they are any good， will just wait and save until they can start their own family business.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 181） The different cultural views held by Americans and Chinese toward management suggest that there exist cultural differences in various nations which may affect their members’ management behavior to some extent.
Cultural Factors on Management
Cultures differ in their orientations and these differences in cultural values often result in varying management practices. According to Hofstede， there are four cultural value dimensions that have a significant impact on management in all cultures： （1） Power Distance； （2） Uncertainty Avoidance； （3） Individualism versus Collectivism； （4） Masculinity versus Femininity. Power Distance
Power distance is “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”（Hofstede， 1991， 28）. People in cultures with a low power distance tend to minimize the importance of a person’s position in the hierarchy. Decision making in organizations tends to be decentralized. In contrast， people in cultures with a high power distance tend to accept the power and authority of their superiors simply on the basis of the superiors’ positions in the hierarchy and to respect the superiors’ right to that power. Decision making in organizations tends to be centralized. Managers are seen as decision-makers. People accept decisions made by their superiors because of their implicit belief that those in higher-level positions have the right to make those decisions.
For example， “a senior Indian executive with a Ph.D. from a prestigious U.S. university related the following story： What is most important for me and my department is not what I do or achieve for the company， but whether the [owner’s] favor is bestowed on me…This I have achieved by saying “yes” to everything [the owner] says or does…To contradict him is to look for another job…I left my freedom of thought in Boston.”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 116） This story indicates that in high power distance countries such as India， people will blindly obey the orders of their superiors. And such strict obedience can be found even at the upper levels.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations”（Hofstede， 1991， 113）. People in societies that have a low measure of uncertainty-avoidance are stimulated by change and thrive on new opportunities. They tent to stress achievement over security. Risk-taking is highly valued in those societies. Organizations with low uncertainty-avoidance cultures exhibit “a less structured and more free-flowing style of management”（Mitchell， 2000， 18）， and have more flexible hierarchies， rules and procedures for doing business. “The organization encourages personnel to use their own initiative and assume responsibility for their actions.”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 117） The opposite conditions apply in societies with high uncertainty-avoidance cultures. People in these cultures tend to have a high need for security and feel threatened by new ideas. Employees in organizations with high uncertainty-avoidance cultures prefer a structured and routine way of doing things. More rigid hierarchies are adopted， rules and regulations are strongly needed in those organizations. Such organizations have “less risk-taking by managers， lower labor turnover and less ambitious employees”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 117）. A typical example that profoundly exhibits the influence of uncertainty-avoidance in the workplace is the different employment systems between the United States and Japan. “The American employment system at Nomura is by contract. Under that system， we are prepared to pay the best possible price now. The Japanese employment system， in contrast， is very traditional ― step-by-step. Our Japanese employees give up part of today’s salary to enjoy guarantees of future employment and income. Every few years， everyone gets promoted at the same time. If our American employees would accept the Japanese system， we would be glad to offer it. But as of today， no American has signed up for it.”（Mead， 1994， 69） This shows that in countries like Japan with high needs to avoid uncertainty， employees place great emphasis on job security， which may also explain why job mobility is much lower in this country than in other countries that have a relatively low measure of uncertainty-avoidance. As a result， some Japanese firms have traditionally used lifetime employment practices. An employee will work in the same company for the same boss and never change until he/she retires.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualism pertains to “societies in which the ties between individuals are loose： everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family”（Hofstede， 1991， 51）. It is the cultural belief that the person comes first. People who hold this belief tend to put their own interests and those of their immediate families ahead of those of others. Individualist societies stress individual achievements and rights. Independence is valued. Employees will act according to their own interests. “The relationship between employer and employee is primarily conceived as a business transaction， a calculative relationship between buyers and sellers on a ‘labor market’. Poor performance on the part of the employee or a better pay offer from another employer is legitimate and socially accepted reasons for terminating a work relationship.”（Hofstede， 1991， 64） Collectivism pertains to “societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong， cohesive ingroups， which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”（Hofstede， 1991， 51）. It is the cultural belief that the group comes first. People who hold this belief tend to put the good of the group ahead of their own interests. Collectivist societies value conformity rather than variety which is common in individualist cultures. Group loyalty is stressed. Employees will act according to the interest of the organization to which he/she belongs. “The relationship between employer and employee is seen in moral terms. It resembles a family relationship with mutual obligations of protection in exchange for loyalty. Poor performance of an employee in this relationship is no reason for dismissal： one does not dismiss one’s child. Performance and skills， however， do determine what tasks one assigns to an employee.”（Hofstede， 1991， 64） The following is an example of attitudes toward executive compensation. “The ratio of annual compensation for executives compared to line employees in the manufacturing sectors of highly individualistic cultures such as the United States and South Africa is far more disproportionate than in highly collectivist societies like Japan. In the United States executive pay is 28 times that of the average manufacturing worker and in South Africa it is 24 times. In Japan the top executive earns only about 10 times the average worker’s pay. American executives measure their success through pay and perks； Japanese executives through the overall health of their company and the contentment of employees.” （Mitchell， 2000， 15） The individualist versus collectivist cultural differences may explain the wide differences in executives’ pay between the U.S. and Japan. In the United States， where individualism is a cultural norm， employees believe they should be compensated according to their individual performance. Personnel with excellent work and high efficiency are given more individual rewards. The executive’s pay is presumed to measure his/her individual contribution to the firm. Yet such reward system may not be effective when transplanted to the group-oriented Japanese culture. The Japanese executive’s compensation symbolically reflects the performance of the group to which he/she belongs， not any personal achievements. This compensation structure which focuses on group rewards is a valid reflection of Japan’s collectivist norms.
Masculinity versus Femininity
Masculinity pertains to “societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct （i.e.， men are supposed to be assertive， tough， and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest， tender， and concerned with the quality of life）” （Hofstede， 1991， 82）. In masculine societies people tend to attach great importance to earnings， recognition， advancement and challenge. Gender-based roles are sharply differentiated in these societies. Men are expected to work and to focus their careers in traditionally male occupations， and those who do not often view themselves as failures. Women are generally expected not to work outside the home and to focus more on their families. If they do work outside the home， they are usually expected to pursue work in areas traditionally dominated by women， and few of them hold higher-level jobs. Femininity pertains to “societies in which social gender roles overlap （i.e.， both men and women are supposed to be modest， tender and concerned with the quality of life）”（Hofstede， 1991， 82-83）. In feminine cultures people tend to attach great importance to manager， cooperation， living area and employment security. Members stress relating to others rather than competing. Gender-based roles are less sharply distinguished. Men and women are more likely both to pursue diverse careers， and some of them want careers while others do not. Many career women hold higher-level positions. Here is a story which illustrates how masculinity-femininity cultural differences affect people’s attitudes and behavior from different cultural background. “As a young Dutch engineer I once applied for a junior management job with an American engineering company which had recently settled in Flanders， the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. I felt well qualified： with a degree from the senior technical university of the country， good grades， a record of active participation in student associations， and three years’ experience as an engineer with a well-known， although somewhat sleepy Dutch company. I had written a short letter indicating my interest and providing some vital personal data. I was invited to appear in person， and after a long train ride I sat facing the American plant manager. I behaved politely and modestly， as I knew an applicant should， and waited for the other man to ask the usual questions which would enable him to find out how qualified I was. To my surprise he asked very few of the things that I thought should be discussed. Instead he wanted to know some highly detailed facts about my experience in tool design， using English words I did not know， and the relevance of which escaped me. Those were the things I could learn within a week once I worked there. After half an hour of painful misunderstandings he said ‘Sorry ― we need a first class man.’ And I was out in the street.”（Hofstede， 1991， 79） As we know， Netherlands is one of the world’s most feminine countries according to Hofstede’s research. Modesty rather than assertiveness is highly appreciated in this country. Consequently， “Dutch applicants in American eyes undersell themselves”（Hofstede， 1991， 79）， and that is why “I” was turned down.
Conclusion
A culture affects and reflects the values and attitudes of members of a society. The differing cultural values and attitudes across the world have resulted in different management practices in all nations. The characteristics of management are shaped by culture， thus closely related to culture.
References：
[1]Hodgetts，R.M.and Luthans，F.Internatioal Management ― Culture，Strategy，and Behavior（4th ed.）.[M]北京：清華大学出版社，2003.
[2]Hofstede，G.Cultures and Organizations：Software of the Mind.[M]London：Harper Collins Business，1991.
[3]Mead，R.International Management：Cross-Cultural Dimensions.[M]Oxford：Blackwell Publishers Ltd，1994.
[4]Mitchell，C.International Business Culture.[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
[5]Samovar，L.A.et al.Communication Between Cultures（3rd ed.）.[M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
【Key words】culture； cultural factor； value； attitude； management
【作者簡介】董佳文（1978- ），女，汉族，浙江绍兴人，上海立达职业技术学院基础与外语学院，助教，硕士研究生，研究方向为商务英语研究。
Introduction
Today’s business world is increasingly global. And the real challenge at present， for the manager， is “developing the ability of management from different countries and cultures to think and work together ― a primary factor for the success of global organizations.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 179） This challenge exists because even the conception of management can be viewed differently from culture to culture. Hofstede states that management in the American sense “refers not only to the process but also to the managers as a class of people. Members of this class carry a high status. In the United States， the manager is a cultural hero.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 179） and in the Chinese view “Overseas Chinese American enterprises lack almost all characteristics of modern management. They tend to be small， cooperating for essential functions with other small organizations through networks based on personal relations. They are family owned， without the separation between ownership and management typical in the West， or even in Japan and Korea…Decision making is centralized in the hands of one dominant family member， but other family members may be given new ventures to try their skill on. They are low-profile and extremely cost-conscious， applying Confucian virtues of thrift and persistence. Their size is kept small by the assumed lack of loyalty of non-family employees， who， if they are any good， will just wait and save until they can start their own family business.”（Samovar， et al， 2000， 181） The different cultural views held by Americans and Chinese toward management suggest that there exist cultural differences in various nations which may affect their members’ management behavior to some extent.
Cultural Factors on Management
Cultures differ in their orientations and these differences in cultural values often result in varying management practices. According to Hofstede， there are four cultural value dimensions that have a significant impact on management in all cultures： （1） Power Distance； （2） Uncertainty Avoidance； （3） Individualism versus Collectivism； （4） Masculinity versus Femininity. Power Distance
Power distance is “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”（Hofstede， 1991， 28）. People in cultures with a low power distance tend to minimize the importance of a person’s position in the hierarchy. Decision making in organizations tends to be decentralized. In contrast， people in cultures with a high power distance tend to accept the power and authority of their superiors simply on the basis of the superiors’ positions in the hierarchy and to respect the superiors’ right to that power. Decision making in organizations tends to be centralized. Managers are seen as decision-makers. People accept decisions made by their superiors because of their implicit belief that those in higher-level positions have the right to make those decisions.
For example， “a senior Indian executive with a Ph.D. from a prestigious U.S. university related the following story： What is most important for me and my department is not what I do or achieve for the company， but whether the [owner’s] favor is bestowed on me…This I have achieved by saying “yes” to everything [the owner] says or does…To contradict him is to look for another job…I left my freedom of thought in Boston.”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 116） This story indicates that in high power distance countries such as India， people will blindly obey the orders of their superiors. And such strict obedience can be found even at the upper levels.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations”（Hofstede， 1991， 113）. People in societies that have a low measure of uncertainty-avoidance are stimulated by change and thrive on new opportunities. They tent to stress achievement over security. Risk-taking is highly valued in those societies. Organizations with low uncertainty-avoidance cultures exhibit “a less structured and more free-flowing style of management”（Mitchell， 2000， 18）， and have more flexible hierarchies， rules and procedures for doing business. “The organization encourages personnel to use their own initiative and assume responsibility for their actions.”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 117） The opposite conditions apply in societies with high uncertainty-avoidance cultures. People in these cultures tend to have a high need for security and feel threatened by new ideas. Employees in organizations with high uncertainty-avoidance cultures prefer a structured and routine way of doing things. More rigid hierarchies are adopted， rules and regulations are strongly needed in those organizations. Such organizations have “less risk-taking by managers， lower labor turnover and less ambitious employees”（Hodgetts and Luthans， 2003， 117）. A typical example that profoundly exhibits the influence of uncertainty-avoidance in the workplace is the different employment systems between the United States and Japan. “The American employment system at Nomura is by contract. Under that system， we are prepared to pay the best possible price now. The Japanese employment system， in contrast， is very traditional ― step-by-step. Our Japanese employees give up part of today’s salary to enjoy guarantees of future employment and income. Every few years， everyone gets promoted at the same time. If our American employees would accept the Japanese system， we would be glad to offer it. But as of today， no American has signed up for it.”（Mead， 1994， 69） This shows that in countries like Japan with high needs to avoid uncertainty， employees place great emphasis on job security， which may also explain why job mobility is much lower in this country than in other countries that have a relatively low measure of uncertainty-avoidance. As a result， some Japanese firms have traditionally used lifetime employment practices. An employee will work in the same company for the same boss and never change until he/she retires.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualism pertains to “societies in which the ties between individuals are loose： everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family”（Hofstede， 1991， 51）. It is the cultural belief that the person comes first. People who hold this belief tend to put their own interests and those of their immediate families ahead of those of others. Individualist societies stress individual achievements and rights. Independence is valued. Employees will act according to their own interests. “The relationship between employer and employee is primarily conceived as a business transaction， a calculative relationship between buyers and sellers on a ‘labor market’. Poor performance on the part of the employee or a better pay offer from another employer is legitimate and socially accepted reasons for terminating a work relationship.”（Hofstede， 1991， 64） Collectivism pertains to “societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong， cohesive ingroups， which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”（Hofstede， 1991， 51）. It is the cultural belief that the group comes first. People who hold this belief tend to put the good of the group ahead of their own interests. Collectivist societies value conformity rather than variety which is common in individualist cultures. Group loyalty is stressed. Employees will act according to the interest of the organization to which he/she belongs. “The relationship between employer and employee is seen in moral terms. It resembles a family relationship with mutual obligations of protection in exchange for loyalty. Poor performance of an employee in this relationship is no reason for dismissal： one does not dismiss one’s child. Performance and skills， however， do determine what tasks one assigns to an employee.”（Hofstede， 1991， 64） The following is an example of attitudes toward executive compensation. “The ratio of annual compensation for executives compared to line employees in the manufacturing sectors of highly individualistic cultures such as the United States and South Africa is far more disproportionate than in highly collectivist societies like Japan. In the United States executive pay is 28 times that of the average manufacturing worker and in South Africa it is 24 times. In Japan the top executive earns only about 10 times the average worker’s pay. American executives measure their success through pay and perks； Japanese executives through the overall health of their company and the contentment of employees.” （Mitchell， 2000， 15） The individualist versus collectivist cultural differences may explain the wide differences in executives’ pay between the U.S. and Japan. In the United States， where individualism is a cultural norm， employees believe they should be compensated according to their individual performance. Personnel with excellent work and high efficiency are given more individual rewards. The executive’s pay is presumed to measure his/her individual contribution to the firm. Yet such reward system may not be effective when transplanted to the group-oriented Japanese culture. The Japanese executive’s compensation symbolically reflects the performance of the group to which he/she belongs， not any personal achievements. This compensation structure which focuses on group rewards is a valid reflection of Japan’s collectivist norms.
Masculinity versus Femininity
Masculinity pertains to “societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct （i.e.， men are supposed to be assertive， tough， and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest， tender， and concerned with the quality of life）” （Hofstede， 1991， 82）. In masculine societies people tend to attach great importance to earnings， recognition， advancement and challenge. Gender-based roles are sharply differentiated in these societies. Men are expected to work and to focus their careers in traditionally male occupations， and those who do not often view themselves as failures. Women are generally expected not to work outside the home and to focus more on their families. If they do work outside the home， they are usually expected to pursue work in areas traditionally dominated by women， and few of them hold higher-level jobs. Femininity pertains to “societies in which social gender roles overlap （i.e.， both men and women are supposed to be modest， tender and concerned with the quality of life）”（Hofstede， 1991， 82-83）. In feminine cultures people tend to attach great importance to manager， cooperation， living area and employment security. Members stress relating to others rather than competing. Gender-based roles are less sharply distinguished. Men and women are more likely both to pursue diverse careers， and some of them want careers while others do not. Many career women hold higher-level positions. Here is a story which illustrates how masculinity-femininity cultural differences affect people’s attitudes and behavior from different cultural background. “As a young Dutch engineer I once applied for a junior management job with an American engineering company which had recently settled in Flanders， the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. I felt well qualified： with a degree from the senior technical university of the country， good grades， a record of active participation in student associations， and three years’ experience as an engineer with a well-known， although somewhat sleepy Dutch company. I had written a short letter indicating my interest and providing some vital personal data. I was invited to appear in person， and after a long train ride I sat facing the American plant manager. I behaved politely and modestly， as I knew an applicant should， and waited for the other man to ask the usual questions which would enable him to find out how qualified I was. To my surprise he asked very few of the things that I thought should be discussed. Instead he wanted to know some highly detailed facts about my experience in tool design， using English words I did not know， and the relevance of which escaped me. Those were the things I could learn within a week once I worked there. After half an hour of painful misunderstandings he said ‘Sorry ― we need a first class man.’ And I was out in the street.”（Hofstede， 1991， 79） As we know， Netherlands is one of the world’s most feminine countries according to Hofstede’s research. Modesty rather than assertiveness is highly appreciated in this country. Consequently， “Dutch applicants in American eyes undersell themselves”（Hofstede， 1991， 79）， and that is why “I” was turned down.
Conclusion
A culture affects and reflects the values and attitudes of members of a society. The differing cultural values and attitudes across the world have resulted in different management practices in all nations. The characteristics of management are shaped by culture， thus closely related to culture.
References：
[1]Hodgetts，R.M.and Luthans，F.Internatioal Management ― Culture，Strategy，and Behavior（4th ed.）.[M]北京：清華大学出版社，2003.
[2]Hofstede，G.Cultures and Organizations：Software of the Mind.[M]London：Harper Collins Business，1991.
[3]Mead，R.International Management：Cross-Cultural Dimensions.[M]Oxford：Blackwell Publishers Ltd，1994.
[4]Mitchell，C.International Business Culture.[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
[5]Samovar，L.A.et al.Communication Between Cultures（3rd ed.）.[M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.