See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257922596

Toward Better Understanding for Arabian

Culture: Implications based on Hofstedes
Cultural Model
ARTICLE FEBRUARY 2012

CITATIONS

READS

1,343

4 AUTHORS:
Bader Obeidat

Rifat O. Shannak

University of Jordan

University of Jordan

27 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

45 PUBLICATIONS 177 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Ra'ed (Moh'd Taisir) Masa'deh

Idries Jarrah

University of Jordan-Aqaba

University of Jordan

61 PUBLICATIONS 180 CITATIONS

7 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ra'ed (Moh'd Taisir) Masa'deh

Retrieved on: 25 September 2015

European Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN 1450-2267 Vol.28 No.4 (2012), pp. 512-522
EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com

Toward Better Understanding for Arabian Culture:

Implications Based on Hofstede's Cultural Model
Bader Yousef Obeidat
Assistant Professor of Strategic Management
Department of Business Management
Faculty of Business, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
E-mail: b.obeidat@ju.edu.jo
Rifat O. Shannak
Associate Professor of Management Information Systems
Chairman of MIS Dept, Faculty of Business
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
E-mail: r_shannak@yahoo.com
Ra'ed (Moh'd Taisir) Masa'deh
Assistant Professor of Management Information System, Dept. of MIS
Faculty of Business, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
E-mail: r.masadeh@ju.edu.jo
Idries Mohammed Al-Jarrah
Associate Professor of Banking and Finance, Dept. of Finance
Faculty of Business, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
E-mail: idries@ju.edu.jo
Abstract
This study investigates the meaning of 'culture' and the various implications of this concept
in the context of Arabian culture. A special attention has been paid to the religious and
heritage features of Arabian culture and their implications for managers of organizations in
the Arabian world. To achieve this objective, a theoretical review has been carried out to
earlier literature. Reviewing relevant literature provides good evidence that the 'culture' and
its implications have noteworthy effects on how employees behave, deal and interact with
management according to different managerial practices. Given its popularity in culturerelated research, Hofstede's model has been adopted in order to explain cultural variations
among nations and to help better understand the influential national cultural features of
some Arabian communities. The analytical review also shows that the characteristics of
Arabian culture differ from those of Western communities, and thus different managerial
theories and practices need to be applied in Arabian organizations albeit these
organizations continuing tendency to adopt pure Western theories and practices. This
study also addresses the managerial problems of Arabian organizations and recommends
that managers of Arab organizations need to be aware of own cultural aspects and the
vitality of employing their awareness to avoid negative consequences on the performance
of their organizations.
512

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

Keywords: Culture, National Culture, Hofsteds Model, Arab Culture, Islam.

1. Introduction
Earlier literature suggests that the 'culture' and its implications play an important role in how people
behave, act and respond to things in their communities. The cultural differences between nations and
their organizations raise the question of whether what can be applied to organizations of one country is
applicable to the organizations in another country. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to articulate
the meaning of 'culture' and its implications for organizations operating in the Arabian world and to
acknowledge the complexities involved in such an important concept. Our finding is supposed to help
managers in these communities to understand the various cultural implications with the aim of
mitigating their negative effects on their managerial performance.
The national culture will be addressed with an emphasis on Hofstede's (1980, 1991) model of
national culture which includes five main dimensions that were suggested to explain the implications
of national culture for the organizational performance. Although this model has been subject to
methodological and theoretical criticisms, it is still considered to be among the most relevant and
helpful models that clarify how the national culture of a given society may affect managerial behavior
and the effect of subsequent consequences of this behavior on managerial performance (Mead, 1998).
This last section of this study examines the Arabian culture, their features and how these may
affect the behavior of people inside the Arabian communities or organizations. Finally, we conclude by
directing the mangers in Arabian organizations to the managerial problems they are expected to face
and present some recommendations to help deal with these problems and mitigate their negative
consequences.

2. Culture
One of the challenges of conducting cultural research is understanding what culture is, given the
numerous definitions, conceptualizations, and dimensions used to describe this concept (Stroh et al.,
2002). Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970) commented that, culture is one of those items that defy a
single all-purpose definition and there are almost as many meanings of culture as people using the
term (Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, 1970, p. 154). This was supported by many other researchers who
agreed on the difficulty of finding a single definition of culture and commented that culture is too deep
to be categorised by tight definitions (Tayeb, 1994).Culture has been defined as the fundamental
values, attitudes, beliefs, and patterns of thinking which are rooted in view of a region or society of
how the world works and how individuals and or groups can and should operate in that world (Brake et
al., 1995). It gives people a sense of a common identity and the means of relating to one another.
An important insight into our understanding of culture is the awareness of the visible and
invisible aspects of culture. Hofstede (1998) and Delong and Fahey (2000), for example, suggested that
culture includes visible, explicit and observable cultural facets such as norms and practices (Leidner
and Kayworth, 2006; Groeschl and Doherty, 2000).
2.1. National Culture
National culture has been investigated and defined in many studies. One of the most widely used
definitions of national culture is the one suggested by Hofstede (1980, 1991, and 2001) who defined
national culture as the collective mental programming of the people of any particular nationality. He
said that people share a collective mental programming which distinguishes their culture from others.
This mental programming shapes the attitudes, values, behaviour, competences, and perceptions of
priority of that nationality. Many researchers used this view to define culture because it is a very
comprehensive definition (Dedoussis, 2004; Shahin and Wright, 2004; Tayeb, 1996). However, there
are other definitions of national culture. For example, Fukuyama (1995) identified national culture as
the inherited ethical habits which consist of ideas and values which are characterised by repetition and
513

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

reinforced by habits, images, and social opinions. These researchers, regardless of their differences in
defining national culture, agree on the fact that national culture is a collection of habits, traditions and
beliefs which differentiate one culture from another.
2.2. Dimensions of National Culture
Several models of national culture have been suggested (c.f Parsons and Shils, 1951; Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck, 1961; Rokeach, 1973 in Shore and Cross, 2005). Models such as Halls (1976), Laurent's
(1983, 1986), and Trompenaars' (1994) have been widely debated and replicated and are considered to
be some of the best-known models that investigated the effect of culture in business and economic
studies. Nevertheless, one of the most useful and indeed most frequently used models of the effect of
national culture on the management practices is the one suggested by Hofstede (1980, 1991, and 2001).
Many researches agreed on the validity of using this model to describe workplace behaviour (see
Chiang, 2005). For the merits of Hosfsteds model expressed earlier, this study will adopt this approach
to address the behaviour of the employees in the Arab cultured organizations.
In his research carried out in 1980, Hofstede studied the cultural beliefs of 116,000 employees
who were working in the same multinational organisation (IBM) from 40 nations (data collected
between 1968 and 1973). However, only the service and sales employees of IBM were included in his
study. In 1991, Hofstede extended his original study and included data for an additional ten countries
and three regions: the Middle East, West Africa, and East Africa. Hofstedes work has been widely
cited in the earlier studies (Shore and Venkatachalam, 1995; Erez and Earley, 1993).
Hofstede (1980, 1991, and 2001) proposed that national culture and its values affect the work
environment and its management. It was classified into four dimensions by which organisations and
social structure can be shaped. These dimensions are classified as power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism collectivism, and masculinity femininity (Vieregge and Quick, 2011).
Nevertheless, in his 1993 study , Hofstede added a fifth dimension namely - future
orientation(Cavusgil et al., 2008). However, most of the previous studies which discussed this model
focus on the first four dimensions that represent the national culture.
In (1980, 2001), Hosfstede used the first four dimensions and argued that these dimensions
represent national culture and make one particular culture distinct from another. Additionally, he rated
50 countries and three regions on these four dimensions (1 for the lowest and 53 for the highest). As
was the case with this study which considers Arab countries as having one cultural characteristic,
Hofstede included seven Arab countries: Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates.
2.2.1. The Power Distance Dimension
Hofstede (1991) defines power distance as, a measure of the interpersonal power or influence
between (a superior) and (a subordinate) as perceived by the (subordinate). This dimension is referred
to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country
expect and accept that the power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98; Hofstede, 1997, p.
28).
Hofstede (2001) noted that there is a positive relationship between power distance and
paternalism. In the power distance dimension, decisions are made on the basis of favours to
subordinates and loyalty to superiors, not on the basis of merit. Nations with a large power distance,
where inequality is accepted, emphasize on a dependency relationship between managers and
subordinates. Such nations include the Arab countries which scored 80 out of 104 score; these were
ranked the seventh amongst the 50 countries included in the study. This result can be justified by the
inherited culture of the Ottoman Turks who ruled the Arab countries for 400 years (Al-Rasheed, 1997).
On the other hand, cultures with lower power distance such as Austria and Israel are characterised by
agreement between managers and subordinates to minimize inequality.
514

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

2.2.2. Uncertainty Avoidance
This dimension is defined as intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede and Peterson,
2000, p. 401; Hofstede, 1991, p. 113). Another definition is the extent to which the members of a
culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011, p. 12;
Hofstede, 2001, p. 161; Hofstede, 1997, p. 113). High uncertainty avoidance culture tends to encourage
dependence on the government, whereas cultures with low uncertainty avoidance encourage
employees empowerment. According to Hofstede (1980), weak uncertainty avoidance cultures such as
the UK and Denmark tend to be tolerant. In addition, people respect rules when they exist, but try to
avoid them whenever possible. High uncertainty avoidance cultures are characterised by formalized
management and the constraint of innovation by rules (Hofstede, 2001). Furthermore, employees in
this type of culture believe that an organisations rules should not be broken.
It can be noticed that Arab countries in Hofstedes model scored low in the uncertainty
avoidance dimension compared to other countries like Greece. This was recognised by Parnell and
Hatem (1999) who emphasised the effect of religion on this dimension and considered it a crucial
factor which affected Hofstedes results. For Muslims, God controls all kinds of resources (Cavusgil et
al., 2008) and the Islamic value system requires a commitment to God and a belief that God is
ubiquitous even in material work. Muslims believe that time is, to a certain extent, controlled by God
and nothing happens until God wills for it to happen (Herbig and Dunphy, 1998). The uncertainty
avoidance dimension is considered to be the only dimension in which religion plays an important role.
2.2.3. Individualism Collectivism
This dimension refers to the extent to which individual self-interest is prioritized over the concerns of
the group (McCoy et al., 2005). It anticipates fundamental issues about an individuals motivation and
about the organisation and functioning of a society as a whole (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). An individual
culture such as that of the USA is characterised by loose ties among its members. By contrast,
collectivist cultures are characterised by trust and loyalty as evidenced by the appearance of
strong/close groups. The two extremes of individualism versus collectivism can be highlighted in the
contrast between the me versus the we societies (Hofstede, 2001).
In Hofstedes classification, Arab countries scored 38 out of a possible score of 100. They were
rated to have a more collective than individualistic culture. It is worth pointing out that there is a
negative relationship between this dimension and the power distance dimension. Countries with large
power distance, such as Arab countries, tend to be more collectivist. In such countries, people are more
dependent on groups as well as on power figures than on individuals (Hofstede, 1994).
Employees within Arab culture organizations are expected to be collectivists in their behaviour.
These employees will belong to certain groups within these organisations, and through the impact of
the power distance dimension which was discussed previously; their loyalty will be more to their
managers than to the organisational goals.
2.2.4. Masculinity Femininity
The Masculinity Femininity dimension is not related to the gender of the subject examined, but
instead refers to the characteristics of the culture itself (Hofstede, 1980, 1984, 1991, and 2001).
Masculine culture shows a preference for output and emphasises performance, while feminine
culture shows a preference for processes and emphasises aesthetics (Herbig and Dunphy, 1998). Arab
countries are one example in Hofstedes extended study of cultures which are considered to have both
moderate masculine and feminine characteristics. In his model, they scored 53 out of a maximum score
of 100 and were ranked 23 amongst the 50 countries and three regions included in this study.
According to Bjerke and al-Meer (1993), Arabs are considered to be close to the feminine side of the
masculine-feminine continuum in that they care about establishing a friendly relationship with other
people. Those in a feminine culture work to live, whereas in a masculine society, the belief is that a
person lives to work (Hofstede, 2001).
515

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

2.2.5. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation
Organisations in cultures with a long-term orientation focus on future results and are more receptive to
in-depth investment in long-term changes of the firm (Waarts and Van Everdingen, 2005).
Furthermore, while organisations with a short-term orientation focus on the past and on quick results,
organisations with a long-term orientation focus on future results, and prefer a stable progression
towards long-term goals.
Finally, Arab countries were not classified in this dimension. However, taking into
consideration that long-term planning cultures encourage planning; a strategy which Arab cultures use
to reduce uncertainty and the similarity of Arab culture to the Chinese one, Arab culture could be
classified as having a long-term orientation.
2.3. Critique of Hofstedes Model of National Culture
Hofstedes work has not been without its critics. It is the subject of a long-standing debate and has
received a great deal of attention in the literature. Most criticisms have focused on methodological
(generalizability, cultural boundedness, subjectivity, and the method of data collection) and theoretical
perspectives (construction of dimensions, conceptualization of culture, and its recent application)
(McSweeney, 2002).
One issue is generalizability. This stems from the fact that the sample of Hofstedes study was
limited to one single large multinational corporation (IBM). Many researchers have questioned
whether it is valid to generalise the results of the culture at IBM to other cultures. This leads to both the
second and the third limitations concerning the cultural boundedness and subjectivity. It is difficult for
someone to fully understand the behaviour of people in other cultures without growing up in that
culture. For that reason, Yeh (1988) criticised Hofstede for being bounded by his own cultural
background (in Chiang, 2005).
Hofstedes original career was in the marketing and service departments of IBM. This might
have affected the result of his study in that it reflects only specific subcultures within the organisation
rather than the organisation as a whole (McSweeney, 2002; Smith, 1992, 1996). McSweeney (2002)
and Merker (1982) added that Hofstedes respondents were mostly male and that this may have also
affected the results of the study. Using questionnaires as a single data collection method has also been
criticised; a complex subject like culture needs more than one research instrument to cover all aspects.
Triandis (1988) has suggested using a multi-method research design to overcome this problem.
Concerning the theoretical limitations, it has been noted that Hofstedes data represent values.
However, although values are considered to be an internal factor which certainly affects behaviour,
there are some other external factors which may also affect behaviour (Smith, 1996).
Triandis (1988) commented that Hofstedes dimensions are narrow and limited only to the
study of work-related values, which are not necessarily the same as the national ones. In addition, some
dimensions can be combined into one dimension. For example, the Confucian dynamism dimension
reflects the same underlying cultural values as individualism and for this reason they should not be
treated as independent according to Yeh and Lawrence, 1995; and Mead, 1994.
Other researchers have questioned whether this model reflects the present day (c.f McSweeney,
2002; Verbeke, 2000). Smith (1996) and Sondergaard (1994) questioned whether the dimensions
developed from data collected between 1968 and 1973 are out of date. Perhaps the ongoing processes
of modernisation have changed the type of cultural differences which were dominant at the time.
However, some of these criticisms of Hofstedes study have been refuted by other researchers who
have generated similar results. These results show that Hofstedes model is still relevant in the present
day. Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars (1996) for instance studied culture in business organisations in 43
countries in which they confirmed two dimensions of Hofstedes model - individualism and power
distance. Tayeb (1988), looking at British and Iranian organisations and using Hofstedes IBM
questions as her basis generated the same dimensions as Hofstedes model.
516

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

It can be concluded that although there are some weaknesses in Hofstedes study, it can be
considered as one of the most important studies concerning national culture. Various studies have
replicated Hofstedes study using Hofstedes questionnaire or another research instrument replicated
the results of his study (c.f Smith et al., 1996; Smith, 1996; Sondergaard, 1994; Tayeb, 1988).
According to Mead (1998), Hofstedes study is, most certainly, the best study of cultures and to ignore
its findings would be inexcusable.
2.4. Arab Culture
Many researchers have investigated Arab culture and its significance. As mentioned earlier, Hofstede
(1991) studied the national culture of seven Arab countries. He referred to them as the Arab Group.
Hofstede characterised Arab countries as having a large power distance, relatively strong uncertainty
avoidance, high collectivism, and a moderate Masculinity / Femininity.
Weir (1993) emphasized the unique characteristics of the Arab culture and identified it as a
fourth paradigm that represents the management practice in Arab countries besides the three most wellknown paradigms (American, European, and Japanese cultural paradigms). He commented that the
components of this paradigm are rooted in the Islamic, social, and political life of Arab countries.
However, one of the major problems in researching Arab culture is the question of whether to
deal with all Arab countries as one unit or separately. Lamb (1987) said that it is impossible to
generalise most cultural values across all Arab countries. Many other researchers supported Lamb and
commented that each Arab country is different from the others and even stated that cultural differences
can be found within the same country. Sidani and Gardner (2000) and Ali and Wahabi (1995) for
instance, questioned how Arab Lebanon and Morocco are. Nevertheless, many researchers
investigating Arab culture disagreed with them and treated Arab countries as one unit. Wilson (1996)
for example said that beliefs and attitudes shared by many Arabs seem to cross national and social
classes. Moreover, Dedoussis (2004) commented that some generalizations are to be expected when
referring to Arab Culture since the Arab countries comprise a large geographical region from the
Atlantic Edge of Africa through the northern part of the continent to the Arabian Gulf and from Sudan
to the Middle East. As a result, all Arab countries have been treated as one entity identified as Arab
culture.
2.4.1. The Effect of Islam on Arab Culture
One of the most important and distinctive aspects of Arab culture is religion. Many researchers have
identified religion as a dominant variable which affects most aspects of Arab culture (Kalliny and
Gentry, 2007; Shahin and Wright, 2004). Islam is considered to be the factor which has helped shape
culture within Islamic countries the most and within Arab countries in particular. Arabic language,
social life, and traditions are all rooted in Islam which is considered to be a complete way of life
(Kavoossi, 2000). Nevertheless, although Islam is rooted in the daily life of every Muslim, a Muslims
behaviour is not a complete reflection of Islam (Al-Shaikh, 2003). Al-Shaikh added that the prevailing
political and economical systems are a mixture of capitalism, socialism, and secularism. This is
supported by the fact that Arab culture has been affected by globalization and, in particular, Western
behaviour. However, this does not deny the fact that Islam is still the most prevalent religion in Arab
countries and that it affects almost every aspect of their behaviour. Islam strengthens certain
characteristics of the Arab culture such as honesty, loyalty, flexibility, and trust (Ali, 1995).
Moreover, work in the Islamic system may be seen as worship, and the motivation to work is
not merely based upon material needs (Dadfar, 1984, 1987, and 1990). (Sidani et al., 2011). Dadfar
commented that the Islamic management system is ideal, in theory, and that it is based upon
participation, consultation, diffusion of knowledge, creativity, and equal promotion of opportunities.
However, to a large extent Islamic values are only included in theory and not in practice (Dadfar, 1984,
1987, and 1990; Rehman and Askari, 2010).
517

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

Previous studies show that the attitudes of Arab managers are to some extent similar to those of
Western managers (see Badawy, 1980). However, Arab culture, according to Hofstede, is characterised
by having a large power distance, relatively strong uncertainty avoidance, high collectivism, and a
moderate Masculine/Feminine society. Dadfar conducted extensive research (1984, 1987, and 1990)
and commented that Arab culture has its own description which differs from the Western culture
(Dadfar, 1984, 1987, and 1990 in Sabri, 1997). It is, for example, adherent to religion and is
characterised by familism, where the loyalty of individuals is to their families and then to the next
social level that individuals belong to as their tribe, religious sect or to the extended family (Sidani and
Thornberry, 2009). Dadfar added that business is linked with family and is based on interpersonal
relationships. This characteristic is close to Hofstedes finding of a large power distance in Arab
countries.
Time is another important factor which distinguishes the Eastern from the Western culture.
Arabs are more traditional and oriented to their past (Kalliny and Gentry, 2007; Hofstede, 2001;
Hofstede and Bond, 1988). According to Miroshnik (2002), time is seen as unlimited and an unending
resource by people of the Eastern cultures.
2.5. Problems of Arab Management
Many problems are associated with Arab management. One source of those problems is the fact that
contemporary management theories and practices are relatively new to Arab organisations. The
adoption of those theories and practices without taking into consideration that they were applied
exclusively to Western cultures is a common practice. Insufficient operations, lack of direction,
traditional work force patterns and shifts in the social structure are some problems associated with
Arab organisations as a result of not making those theories compatible with the Arab culture (Ali,
1995).
This can be explained by the large power distance and the collectivist outlook which are
considered to be characteristics of Arab culture. This might lead to another problem within the
organisation in that the loyalty of the employees is to individuals rather than to the organisation itself.
Al-Rasheed (2001) added that the personalized superior/subordinate relationship is one of the more
serious problems in an Arab organisation whose employees are loyal to other individuals rather than to
the organisation.
The problem of the personalized superior/subordinate relationship can also lead to another
serious problem as suggested by Al-Rasheed (2001). The non-cohesive and less-elaborated
organisational structure within Arab organisations reflects the poor coordination and connection
between tasks, jobs and positions inside the organisation. According to Al-Rasheed, this feature
manifests itself in the imbalance in both responsibilities and authorities and the modification of
positions and responsibilities in the organisation to accommodate people rather than the actual needs of
the organisation. Attiyah (1993) attributed these problems to organisational, economical, and political
factors. He emphasized the importance of these problems and called them the roots of the
organisational problems. However, Attiyahs study does not believe that culture can lead to
centralization or other problems inside an organisation. Al-Rasheed (2001) identified limited future
orientation as one of the features of the Arab business organisation. He said that these features are
different from one country and organisation to another. Al-Rasheed added that limited future
orientation in Arab organisations is represented by the lack of performance appraisal, the absence of
job goals and career paths, and the extreme lack of human resource management planning and policies.
The centralization problem is one of the main features of Arab management which is
represented in Hofstedes power distance dimension. This leads to another problem of Arab
management style, namely an excessive lack of delegation of authority. Furthermore, it is represented
by the serious lack of power and autonomy in non-senior top management positions (Al-Rasheed,
2001).
518

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

Training courses are considered to be one of the main problems in Arab organisations, more
specifically, the lack of training courses which meet the needs of their employees. This problem was
recognised by many researchers who asserted the need for training courses to help managers and
employees do their jobs effectively. Such researchers include Al-Faleh (1987) who found that training
programmes to meet managers development needs were insufficient. Al-Rasheed (2001) interpreted
this as evidence that Arab managers view training as a cost rather than an investment. Whereas Sidani
and Thornberry (2009) emphasized the fact that training is considered to be an investment that could
help international managers to cope better with Arab employees.
On this basis, it can be seen that the management style in Arab culture is unique which shares
some of its characteristics with other cultures. Although Arabs have imported modern laws, rules, and
structure from others, nevertheless old practices and customs are still dominant (Cunningham and
Sarayrah, 1993).

3. Summary and Conclusions

The present study aims to define the 'culture' and the connotations of this concept to the managers of
organizations operating in the Arabian world. In our extensive review of the earlier literature and
benefiting from the widely adopted model in the literature; Hofsted model which is used to better
understanding of the national culture, we tried to direct the managers of organizations in the Arabian
world for the cultural problems they are anticipating to face and how to adapt the current westernized
model adopted in their organizations to best fit the environment in which they operate.
Hofsted's cultural model, the model adopted in this study, includes five dimensions suggested
to better understand the national culture. The five dimensions of this model include power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism collectivism, masculinity femininity, and future orientation.
These dimensions, based on their popularity in the earlier literature, are supposed to enhance our
understanding for the national culture and are supposed to enhance the organizational performance.
In our review of the relevant literature, we found that the concept of 'culture' is defined in many
ways in different fields by researchers but most researchers agree that this concept is important to
better understanding of how organizations operate, and is a key constituent for organization that pursue
distinctive organizational strategy.
With regard to Arabian organizations in particular, we provide evidence that the various aspects
of 'culture' including the religious and heritage aspects have a profound impact on the organizational
environment by governing the behavior of the employees in these organizations. Furthermore, we have
contended that the features of the Arabian culture are different from those in western communities.
Accordingly, we recommend different managerial theories and practices be applied to these
organizations though these organizations still tend to apply the Western communities theories without
adapting such theories to fit the norms and traditions popular in Arab countries.
Finally, we attempted to shed light on the managerial problems existing in Arabian
organizations and explained that significant aspects of these problems are related to cultural aspects
addressed in the earlier literature. We suggested that managers of organizations in the Arabian world
be aware of these problems and use their awareness to handle such cultural issues to enhance the
success of their organizations.

References
[1]
[2]

Ajiferuke, M., Boddewyn, J., 1970. Culture and other explanatory variables in comparative
management studies. Academy of Management Journal 13 (2), 153-163.
Al-Faleh, M., 1987. Cultural influences on Arab management development. Journal of
Management Development 6 (3), 19-33.
519

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]

Al-Rasheed, A., 1997. Factors affecting managers motivation and job satisfaction: The case of
Jordanian bank managers. Middle East Business Review 2 (1), 112-117.
Al-Rasheed, A., 2001. Features of traditional Arab management and organization in the Jordan
business environment. Journal of Translational Management Development 6 (1-2), 27-53.
Al-Shaikh, F., 2003. The practical reality theory and business ethics in non-Western context.
Journal of Management Development 22 (8), 679-693.
Ali, A., 1995. Cultural discontinuity and Arab management thought. International Studies of
Management and Organization 25 (3), 7-30.
Ali, A. J., Wahabi, R., 1995. Managerial value systems in Morocco. International Studies of
Management & Organization 25 (3), 87-96.
Attiyah, H., 1993. Roots of organization and management problems in Arab countries: Cultural
or otherwise?, In Proceedings of the First Arab Management Conference. Bradford University,
July 6-8, UK, 223-246.
Badawy, M.K., 1980. Styles of mid-eastern managers. California Management Review 22 (2),
51-8.
Bjerke, B., Al-Meer, A., 1993. Culture's consequences: Management in Saudi Arabia.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 14 (2), 30-35.
Brake, T., Walkerm, M., Walker, T., 1995. Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross
Cultural Success. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cavusgil, S., Kinght, G., Riesenberger, J., 2008. International Business: Strategy, Management,
and the New Realities. Prentic Hall, New Jersey.
Chiang, F., 2005. A critical examination of Hofstede's thesis and its application to international
reward management. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (9), 1545-1563.
Cunningham, R.B., Sarayrah, Y.K., 1993. Wasta: The Hidden Force in Middle Eastern Society.
Praegar, Westport, CT.
Dadfar, H., 1984. Organization as a mirror for reflection of national culture: A study of
organizational characteristics in Islamic nations. In Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Organization Symbolism and Corporate Culture, 1984.
Dadfar, H., 1987. Organizational responses to a revolutionary environment: The case of Iran.
Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 3 (4), 213-232.
Dadfar, H., 1990. Industrial buying behavior in the Middle East: A cross national study.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Management and Economics, Linkoping University,
Linkoping, Sweden.
DeLong, D., Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
Academy of Management Executive 14 (4), 113-127.
Dedoussis, E., 2004. A cross-cultural comparison of organizational culture: evidence from
universities in the Arab world and Japan. Cross Cultural Management 11 (1), 15-34.
Erez, M., Earley, P., 1993. Culture, Self-Identity and Work. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Fukuyama, F., 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Hamish
Hamilton, London.
Groeschl, S., Doherty, L., 2000. Conceptualising culture. Cross Cultural Management 7 (4), 1217.
Hall, E., 1976. Beyond Culture. Doubleday, New York.
Herbig, P., Dunphy, S., 1998. Culture and innovation. Cross Cultural Management 5 (4), 13-21.
Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, London.
520

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

[34]

[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]

Hofstede, G., 1994. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Harper Collins
Publishers, London.
Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw- Hill, London.
Hofstede, G., 1998. Organizing for cultural diversity. European Management Journal 7 (4),
390-396.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., 1988. The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics 16 (4), 5-21.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohavy, D. D., Sanders, G., 1990. Measuring organizational cultures:
A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly 35
(2), 286-316.
Hofstede, G., Peterson, M. F., 2000. Culture: National values and organizational practices. In:
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P., Peterson, M.F. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture
and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 401-405.
Kalliny, M., Gentry, L., 2007. Cultural values reflected in Arab and American television
advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 29 (1), 15-32.
Kavoossi, M., 2000. The Globalization of Business and the Middle East: Opportunities and
Constraints. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kluckhohn C., Strodtbeck, F., 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Lamb, D., 1987. The Arabs. Random House, New York.
Laurent, A., 1983. The cultural diversity of western concepts of management. International
Studies of Management & Organization 13 (1/2), 75-96.
Laurent, A., 1986. The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management.
International Studies of Management and Organization 8 (1-2), 75-96.
Leidner, D., Kayworth, T., 2006. A review of culture in information systems research: Toward
a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 357-399.
McCoy, S., Galletta, D., King, W., 2005. Integrating national culture into is research: the need
for current individual-level measures. Communications of AIS 15, 211-224.
McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55, 89118.
Mead, R., 1994. International Management: Cross Cultural Dimensions. MA, Cambridge;
Blackwell, Oxford.
Mead, R., 1998. International Management, 2nd edition, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Merker, S., 1982. Geert Hofstede: Cultures consequences. Behavioural Science 27 (2), 1957.
Minkov, M., Hofstede, G., 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal 18 (1), 10-20.
Miroshnik, V., 2002. Culture and international management: A review. Journal of Management
Development 21 (7/8), 521-544.
Parnell, J., Hatem, T., 1999. Culture antecedents of behavioural differences between American
and Egyptian managers. Journal of Management Studies 36 (3), 399-418.
Parsons, T., Shils, E., 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. MA: Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Rehman, S., Askari, H., 2010. How Islamic are Islamic countries?. Global Economy Journal 10
(2).
Rokeach, M., 1973, The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York.
Sabri, H., 1997. The impact of national culture on organizational structure and culture.
Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Leeds.
Shahin, A., Wright, P., 2004. Leadership in the context of culture: An Egyptian perspective.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25 (6), 499-511.
521

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 28, Number 4 (2012)

[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]

[59]
[60]

[61]

[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]

[68]
[69]
[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]
[74]
[75]

Shore, B., Cross, B., 2005. Exploring the role of national culture in the management of largescale international science projects. International Journal of Project Management 23 (1), 55-64.
Shore, B., Venkatachalam, V., 1995. The role of national culture in systems analysis and
design. Journal of Global Information Management 3 (3), 5-14.
Sidani, Y. M., Gardner, W. L., 2000. Work values among Lebanese workers. Journal of Social
Psychology 140 (5), 597-607.
Sidani, Y., Jamali, D., Robbins, S., Coulter, M., 2011. Management (Arab World Edition).
Pearson, Boston. Sidani, Y., Thornberry, J., 2009. The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents,
implications, and potential remedies. Journal of Business Ethics 91 (1), 3549.
Smith, P., 1992. Organizational behaviour and national cultures. British Journal of Management
3, 39-51.
Smith, P., 1996. National cultures and the values of organizational employees: Time for another
look. In: Joynt, P., Warner, M. (Eds.), Managing Across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives.
International Thomson Business Press, London.
Smith, P., Dugan, S., Trompenaars, F., 1996. National culture and the values of organizational
employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-National Psychology
27, 231-264.
Sondergaard, M., 1994. Research note: Hofstede's consequences: A study of reviews, citations
and replications. Organization Studies 15 (3), 447-456.
Stroh, L., Northcraft, G., Neale, M., 2002. Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge,
3rd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Tayeb, M., 1988. Organizations and National Culture: A Comparative Analysis. Sage, London.
Tayeb, M., 1996. The Management of a Multicultural Workforce. Wiley, Chichester.
Tayeb, M., 1994. Japanese managers and British culture: A comparative case study. The
International Review of Human Resource Management 5 (1), 145-166.
Triandis, H., 1988. Collectivism and individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in
cross-cultural psychology. In: Verma, B. K., Bagley, C. (Eds.), Personality, Attitudes and
Cognitions. Macmillan, London, pp. 60-95.
Trompenaars, F., 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture. Brealey Publishing, London.
Verbeke, W., 2000. A revision of Hofstede et al.s (1990) operational practices scale. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour 21 (5), 587-602.
Vieregge, M., Quick, S., 2011. Cross-cultural negotiations revisited: Are Asian generations X
and Y members negotiating like their elders?. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal 18 (3), 313-326.
Waarts, E., Van Everdingen, Y., 2005. The Influence of national culture on the adoption status
of innovations: An empirical study of firms across Europe. European Management Journal 23
(6), 601-610.
Weir, D. T. H., 1993. Management in the Arab world, In Proceedings of
The First Arab Management Conference. University of Bradford Management Centre, UK July
6-8, 604-623.
Wilson, M., 1996. Arabic speakers: Language and culture, here and abroad. Topics and
Language Disorders 16 (4), 65-80.
Yeh, R., 1988. On Hofstedes treatment of Chinese and Japanese values. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management 6 (1), 14960.
Yeh, R., Lawrence, J., 1995. Individualism and Confucian dynamism: A note on Hofstedes
cultural root to economic growth. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3), 655-669.

522