Organizational Behavior

Culture and human behavior

Aradhna Malik
Assistant Professor
Vinod Gupta School of Management,
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
1
Culture
Porter and Samovar (1994)

The deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs,

values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion,
notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of
the universe, and material objects and possessions
acquired by a group of people in the course of
generations through individual and group striving.

2
Discussion
Can behavior management in a business
setting be anything but intercultural?

3
 Sources of Difference (Collier, 1994;
Pinderhughes, 1989; Martin & Nakayama,2001)

◼Race ◼Gender
◼Religion ◼Sexual identity
◼Ideology ◼Age
◼Nationality ◼Family constellation
◼Ethnicity ◼Socioeconomic status
◼Appearance ◼Educational (qualifications and
◼Personal artifacts system)
◼Body structure (Height, weight, ◼Professional and personal
height-weight ratio) experiences
◼Behavioral style ◼Occupation
4
Cultural Frameworks (Magnusson et al., 2008)
◼ Hofstede (1967-73)
◼ Schwartz (1988-92)
◼ Trompenaars (1980s – 1990s)
◼ GLOBE (1990s)
◼ ID (Xu et al., 2004)

5
The Many Dimensions of Culture
◼ Hofstede (Late 1960s): 116000 IBM
employees in 40 countries on
preferences around management style
& work envt.
 Power distance (Preference for equality vs.
inequality within groups)
 Certainty (Preference for risk vs. structure)
 Individualism vs. Collectivism
 Masculinity vs. Feminity
6
Intercultural Dimensions (Contd.)
◼ Trompenaars (1980s to late 1990s): 30
companies, 50 countries, 30,000 people
 Relationships with people
◼ Universalism vs. Particularism
◼ Individualism vs. Communitarianism

◼ Neutral vs. Emotional

◼ Specific vs. Diffuse

◼ Achievement vs. Ascription

 Understanding of time
 Attitudes towards environment
7
Bases of cultural frameworks
(Magnusson et al., 2008)

◼ Beckerman (1956): Psychic Distance (PD)

 According to Johanson and Vahlen, (1977)
(cited in Magnusson et al.), ‘PD is “the sum of
factors preventing the flow of information from
and to the market.” e.g. differences in
language, education, business practices,
industrial development and culture.’

8
Bases of cultural frameworks
(Magnusson et al., 2008)

◼ Mulder (1976): Power Distance (PD): “The

extent and acceptance of unequal
distribution of power”
◼ Kostova (1996): Institutional Distance (ID):
“The sum of differences on the three pillars
(regulative, normative and cognitive
environments)”

9
Studies on Institutional Distance
(Magnusson et al., 2008)

◼ Xu et al. (2004) – 45 countries

◼ Gaur et al. (2006) – 53 countries

10
Studies on Institutional Distance
(Magnusson et al., 2008)

◼ Concepts:
 Regulative environment: The laws and rules in a
country
 Normative environment: The general norms and
values held by a country’s people
 Cognitive environment: The inferential sets or ways
individuals notice and interpret environmental
stimuli

11
 High and Low Context Cultures
◼ Edward T. Hall (1976, quoted in Samovar and Porter, 1994)
 Man-Environment (M-E) Transactions
 “ A High Context (HC) Communication or message
is one in which most of the information is either in
the physical context or internalized in the person
while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted
part of the message.”
 “ A Low Context (LC) communication or message
[is one in which] the mass of information is vested
in the explicit code.”
12
Characteristics of HC communication
(Bernstein, 1964, cited in Hall, 1994)

◼ Restricted code of intimacy – words and

sentences collapse and are shortened.
◼ The code that one uses signals and is
consistent with the situation.
◼ A shifting of code signals a shift in
everything else that is to follow.

13
Characteristics of LC communication
(Bernstein, 1964, cited in Hall, 1994)

◼ Explicit vocabulary
◼ Highly articulated
◼ Highly specific code

14
 High Context Cultures

Goal Context

Low context cultures

I
C

15
Summary of cultural frameworks (Magnusson et al., 2008)
Hofstede (1967-93): 1. Individualism-Collectivism
IBM employees – 2. Power distance
started with 40 3. Uncertainty avoidance
countries, now 80+ 4. Masculinity-Femininity
5. Long term orientation

Schwartz (1988-92): 1. Conservationism: Emphasis of status-quo

Students & teachers 2. Intellectual autonomy
from 31 countries 3. Affective autonomy
4. Hierarchy
5. Mastery: Society’s desire to control own environment
6. Egalitarian commitment
7. Harmony (With nature)

Trompenaars 1. Universalism-particularism
(1980s-1990s): 2. Individualism-communitarianism
Managers from 54 3. Neutral-emotional/ affective
countries 4. Specific-diffuse boundaries
5. Achievement-ascription OR Does vs. Is
16
6. Attitude towards time
Summary of cultural frameworks (Contd.)
(Magnusson et al., 2008)

House et al.: 1. Uncertainty avoidance

GLOBE (Global 2. Power distance
Leadership & 3. Institutional collectivism
Organizational 4. In group collectivism
Behavior 5. Gender egalitarianism
Effectiveness) 6. Assertiveness
(1990s): 7. Future orientation
Managers from 8. Performance orientation
58 countries 9. Humane orientation

17
Summary of cultural frameworks (Contd.)
(Magnusson et al., 2008)
Institutional 1. Regulative environment:
Distance (ID) – Xu Anti-trust laws, legal system, impartiality of arbitration,
et al., 2004 – 45 dispute settlement, institutional stability, police
countries; Gaur et effectiveness
al., 2006 – 53 2. Normative environment:
countries Product design, customer orientation, staff training,
willingness to delegate, performance-related pay,
professional managers, effectiveness of corporate
boards
3. Cognitive environment:
Political transparency, anti-trust regulation, intellectual
property protection, judicial system efficiency, fiscal
policy, inflation, market dominance in key industries,
responsiveness of the political system, bureaucratic
corruption, attitude toward economic realities,
transparency toward citizens, political risk,
bureaucratic hindrance to economic development,
18
independence of local authorities
 Why is all this
important for you?

19
Application to Corporate Interactions
◼ Functional areas of management
 Sales
 Marketing
 Advertising
 Human Resources
 Organizational Behavior
 Finance – esp. M & A
 Operations
 Information Technology
 Strategy 20
Application to Different Industries
◼ Product-Service Continuum
◼ Service Industries:
 Hospitality
 Health
 Tourism
 Education
 After-sales
service
 Combinations of the above e.g. Medical value
travel
21
 Bottomline
Cultural identities, affiliations and differences are
dynamic and are influenced by a large number of
predictable and unpredictable factors.

A good starting point is to recognize the reasons

that make us different from each other and be
sensitive to the stimuli provided by our
environments.

(Communication Jokes: It is hot, it is cold)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylwa1oKV3Mc 22
Difficulties with diversity (Johnson, 2002)

◼ Categorizing on the basis of inherited or

acquired traits
◼ Prejudice
◼ Ethnocentrism
◼ Cultural conditioning
◼ Stereotypes
◼ Illusionary correlation and false consensus bias
◼ Discrimination
23
Attribution Theories:
Identifying attribution biases (Trenholm and Jensen, 2002)

◼ Personality bias towards others – explaining

other people’s behavior in terms of their
personality dispositions.
difference from our expectations personality bias

◼ Situational bias toward self – attribution of our

own behavior to situational factors

24
Identifying attribution biases (contd.)
(Trenholm and Jensen, 2002)

◼ Bias towards groups: We explain the behavior of

members of highly stereotyped out-groups (croups
we do not belong to) differently than the behavior
of in-group members (such as our own friends,
associates, or ethnic group)

We attribute the positive behavior by in-group members to their

personal dispositions, while negative behavior is explained in
terms of situational factors

In the case of out-group members, positive behavior is

explained away as situationally produced while negative
25
behavior is seen as the product of personality or group culture.
Identifying attribution biases (contd.)
(Trenholm and Jensen, 2002)

◼ Bias towards cultures:

In individualistic cultures, behavior is usually attributed to

individual personality characteristics.

In collectivistic cultures, even individual behavior is usually

attributed to situational factors.

26
 Culture and Communication

Culture Behavior

27
What is identity (Johnson, 2002)
◼ Your identity is a consistent set of attitudes that
defines who you are.
◼ Your self-schema is a generalization about the self,
derived from past experience, that organizes and
guides your understanding of the information you
learn about yourself from interacting with others.
◼ Your gender identity is your fundamental sense of
your maleness or femaleness.
◼ Your ethnic identity is your sense of belonging to
one particular ethnic group.
◼ Self acceptance is a high regard for yourself, or
conversely, a lack of cynicism about yourself.
28
Cultural Identity (Collier, 1994)
The particular character of the group communication
system that emerges in the particular situation.

Social psychological perspective views identity as a

characteristic of the person and personality, and the
self as centered in social roles and social practices.

Communication perspective views identity as something

that emerges when messages are exchanged
between persons.
29
Identity is defined as an enactment
of cultural communication
(Hecht, Collier, & Beau, 1993, in Collier, 1994)

30
Properties of cultural identity (Collier, 1994)
1. Self-perception:
1. Avowal: “This is who I am”
2. Ascription: “This is who others think I am”

2. Modes of expression:
1. Core symbols: central ideas and concepts and the
everyday behaviors that characterize membership
in that cultural group.
2. Labels: terms groups use to classify and interpret
these core symbols
3. Norms: standards for interpreting core symbols31
Properties of cultural identity (contd.) (Collier, 1994)

3. Individual, relational and communal forms of

identity
4. Enduring and changing property of identity
5. Affective, cognitive, and behavioral components
of identity
6. Content and relationship
7. Salience and intensity differences

32
Identity as a determinant of culture
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if
I am only for myself, what am I? (Talmud)

Basic Human Needs:

◼ Join with others in a cooperative effort to
achieve something great.
◼ Be a unique and separate individual who is
valued and respected in one’s own right.
33
Cultural identity and communication
competence (Collier, 1994)
Cultural competence is the demonstrated ability
to enact a cultural identity in a mutually
appropriate and effective manner.

Intercultural competence is the reinforcement of

culturally different identities that are salient in
the particular situation.

34
Intercultural Interaction: is what happens
when we begin interacting with cultures
that we are not so familiar with.

35
Ethnocognitivism, problem solving,
and hemisphericity (Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Everyone has the same cognitive
components but learns to use them
differently through life (Luria, 1966 in Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Research on cultural difference …
indivates that members of industrialized
societies and members of nonindustrial
societies respond to visual illusions quite
differently (Reid, 1987 in Lieberman, 1994)
36
Cognitive styles (Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Field-dependence/ Field-independence
◼ Reflectivity/ Impulsivity
◼ Tolerance/ intolerance of ambiguity
◼ Left hemisphere/ right hemisphere

37
Cognitive styles and cultural
behaviors rest on continua
rather than on extremes.
How do cognitive styles
influence behaviors in
different cultures?
Field-dependent cognitive style
(Lieberman, 1994)

◼ Holistic perception of event

◼ Sensitivity to feelings and opinions of
others in the group (Scarcella, 1990 in Lieberman, 1994)
◼ In essence, perceiving that one is an
integral unit of and dependent upon one’s
‘context’ or ‘field’

40
Field-independent cognitive
style (Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Isolation of the details of the ‘field’ or
context – compartmentalization or
sequencing of various elements of the field
in order to attribute their happening to
logic or cause and effect
◼ Lack of emphasis on feelings or emotions

41
Field-dependent vs. Field-
independent Cognitive Style
◼ Brown (1980):
Field dependent – High context
Field independent – Low context

42
Reflectivity vs Impulsivity (Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Reflectivity:
 “Thinking about a problem”
 Taking the time to be completely right than to
be partially wrong
 Mistakes are treated rather harshly
 Grey areas are not acceptable: The solution is
either right or wrong

43
Impulsivity
◼ Solve and move on
◼ Being partially correct and moving on is
more important than taking the time to be
absolutely correct (and missing out on
opportunities for growth while doing so)
◼ Grey areas in problem solving acceptable

(Damen, 1987 in Lieberman, 1994)

44
Tolerance of Ambiguity
Bipolarity of language (Right or wrong, good
or bad) – also dependent on context.
 Encourages cause-effect thinking, and
linearity (Korzybsky, 1921 in Lieberman, 1994)
 Less tolerance of ambiguity where there is
greater bipolarity in the structure and meaning
of the language itself (Lieberman, 1994)
Tolerance of Ambiguity: Accepting the grey
areas in language, thought and behavior
45
Caution
◼ These systems are not mutually exclusive.
They may exist along with each other and
influence each other.

e.g. a High Context culture may be bi-polar,

and field-dependent at the same time
Reason for the example on the
previous slide
A culture may be field dependent and
highly contextual, but it may have the
vocabulary to define shades of grey in the
environment.
Cognitive styles and cultural behaviors
rest on continua rather than on extremes.
Ethnocognitivism and
Hemisphericity (Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Ethnocognitivism: Thought patterns dominant
within a culture
◼ Hemisphericity: Hemisphere dominance in the
brain

Both of the above influence behaviors in

different cultures and the manner in which these
behaviors are perceived and interpreted by other
cultures
Cultural differences in problem
solving (Kaplan, 1970 in Lieberman, 1994)
◼ Linear and direct: e.g. English
◼ Tangential and semidirect: e.g. Semitic
◼ Circular: e.g. Asians
◼ Circuitous: e.g. Romance cultures
◼ Combination of direct and circuitous: e.g.
Russians
Cultural differences in problem
solving (Contd.) (Kaplan, 1970)
Cultural and situational variations in
patterns of thought (Condon and Yousef, 1975; Felder
and Silverman, 1988; Gregorc, 1979; and Pribram, 1949, in Lieberman, 1994)

◼ Universalistic: Universal application of concepts

◼ Nominalistic: Abstract terms exist, but abstract
objects (e.g. morality, politeness etc.) do not exist
universally
◼ Hypothetical: Assumption based
◼ Intuitional: Gut feeling
◼ Organismic: Every concept is related to the other
concept and is a constitutent part of the whole.
◼ Dialectical: Using reasoned arguments to establish
truth
◼ Temporal: Reasoning using time as the basis
 Cultural variations (Contd.)…
◼ Axiomatic: Start with definitions, postulates, and common
notions and establish the truth according to those
◼ Affective: Feeling that one is true regardless of the
evidence
◼ Inductive/ Deductive
◼ Analytic
◼ Global
◼ Sequential
◼ Concrete sequential: Reasoning based on reality and real
tangible objects
◼ Abstract random: Creative, and reason by making
connections that may not seem evident, between real
objects
Styles of learning and problem solving
and their hemispheric preference
(McCarthy, 1990, in Lieberman, 1994)

◼ Imaginative (Primarily Right Hemisphere): Perceives

information concretely and processes it reflectively
◼ Analytic (Emphasizes right and left hemisphere
processing): Perceives information abstractly and
processes it reflectively
◼ Commonsense (Emphasizes left and right hemisphere
processing): Integrates theory and practice, by perceiving
information abstractly and immediately applying it to
concrete situations
◼ Dynamic (Primarily right): Perceives information concretely
and applies it immediately to concrete situations
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (1929)
What we think about is strongly influenced
by the language we think in

Because

Our vocabulary limits what we can think

about and express
Discuss
◼ How each of these styles would influence
your work as a manager
◼ How knowledge of each of these styles
would help you help your subordinates
and understand your superiors.
Translation as problematic discourse
in organizations (Banks and Banks, 1991)

57
The issue
◼ Multicultural organizations
◼ Multilingual employees
◼ Multiple ideologies, beliefs, interests at
stake

58
What happens?
◼ Coincident meanings: Interpretations
drawn in a similar manner by people who
have similar reasons for drawing the same
interpretations from the same concept.
◼ Who decides ???

59
The organization as a symbolic activity
People with
 Different socio-cultural backgrounds
 Different goals
 Different reasons for pursuing those goals
come together and
 Try to create a sense of a common goal
 Try to work together to achieve this mutually
decided upon common goal
Usually without compromising on any of the
differences listed above
60
In order to create and pursue a
common goal
◼ People try to understand each other
◼ Convince each other
◼ Coordinate with each other

Without losing sense of what each of them wants

and how and when and where

Essentially, in any organization, people try and

align their comfort zones with each other without
61
expanding their comfort zones too much
But who
decides?
What affects this coordination of
comfort zones in an organization?
◼ Power and authority hierarchies
◼ Reference group allegiances
◼ Cultural training
◼ The polysemic (multiple meanings) nature of
language
◼ The evanescence of meaning: Contextual
significance of meaning/ meaning changes (or
‘disappears’) with a change (or ‘disappearance’
of context) 63
 Degradation of coincident
meaning
The loss of importance or intensity of meaning
during translation or interpretation e.g. Snow is
snow is snow vs. Tlapa (powder snow), and
Kayi (drifting snow), and Tlapat (Still snow), and
Blotla (Blowing snow), etc… (Ref:
http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html)

And why would the Inuit have different terms?

Because they need to deal with the effects of
these variations of snow!
64
Situations for the degradation of
coincident meanings
◼ Changes of organizational contexts
◼ Abuses of legitimate authority
◼ Increased environmental turbulence
◼ Organizational resistance movements by
members with contradictory views

Examples of organizational concepts

evolving constantly: Vision and Mission
65
statements
How does translation factor into
all this?
◼ We think in a language different from the
one we speak in or conduct our business
in
◼ Our language, and the response to the
language we use in our work
environments determines how we frame
our future inputs to the organization

66
Translation and degradation of
meaning
◼ In an attempt to explain our thoughts and
ideas to our peers, we tend to over-
simplify what we are saying
◼ Meaning is essentially embedded in
context: Lack of familiarity with the context
results in inhibition of the accurate
interpretation of meaning

67
Major problems posed by translation
in organizations
(Gray et al., 1985, in Banks & Banks, 1991)

◼ Issues involving inaccuracies in carrying

over referential meanings from one
language to another
◼ Issues involving the loss of common socio-
cultural contexts
◼ Issues involving the change or
sedimentation of power relationships
 Implications
Translation has the potential to degrade coincident meanings
Vulnerability to erosion of worker task accomplishment, productivity,
commitment to programs and institution, and compliance

Remedies:
◼ Avoid the ready-to-hand translator (Sanders, 1989, in Banks & Banks, 1991)
◼ Employ specialists (Klein, 1982, in Banks & Banks, 1991)
◼ Facilitate the familiarity of expert translators with the socio-
cultural context of the organization
◼ Communicate policy interpretations, procedure and product
changes, key job information etc. in writing as well as through
face to face discussions
In-class exercise
1. Map:
1. The language/dialect that you think in
2. Languages/dialects the other students in your class think
in
3. Languages/dialects that your teachers think in
2. Make a list of words from your language/dialect
and from the languages/dialects of your
classmates/ teachers that would be hard to
describe in the language spoken in your class.
3. Discuss how this inability to explain these words to
someone not familiar with the language you use,
could affect your performance as a team. You may
use an activity as an example.
Discussion
1. Identify your own biases and identify how you
attribute your experiences with your in-group
and out group members.
2. Identify what makes you tick as a
communicator. Introspect and list the
intrapersonal factors that motivate you to keep
going in your interactions in different
situations.

71
 Culture Clash (Johnson, 2002)
◼ A culture clash is a conflict over basic values
that occurs among individuals from different
cultures.
◼ Culture clashes occur because the parties
involved are feeling:
 Threatened
 Confused
 Enhanced – could go either way – ‘museum piece’
situation 72
Issues in International Management
◼ Expatriates:
 Moving to a new place with the same people in the
same company
 Moving to a new place with new people in the
same company
 Moving to a new place with new people in a new
company
 Moving to a new place with new people in a new
company where the language is alien – job in
73 Sweden or Japan.
Issues in International Management
(contd.)
◼ Impatriates:
 New people from the same company, same
nationality coming in from another country with
‘better’ know-how.
 Familiar people from the same company, same
nationality, returning from a foreign country with
‘better’ know-how.
 New people from the same company, new
nationality coming in from another country.
 New people from a new company, new
74 nationality, coming in and ‘sitting on our heads’.
Issues in International Management
(contd.)
◼ Repatriates:
 Coming back to the home country, to the same
people, to the parent company, after a stint
abroad.
 Coming back to the home country to the same
people, in a different company, after a stint
abroad.
 Coming back to the home country to different
people, to a different company, after a stint
75 abroad.
Thank You

76