The Influence of Culture on Human Resource Management Processes and Practices

Dianna Stone,Eugene Stone-Romero

• Éditeur: Psychology Press
• Année: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781136677748
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Business
• Sous-sujet: Management

This book, with contributions from expert academics, is designed to motivate both the further development of models concerned with the influence of cultural diversity on several human resource management processes and practices and the design and conduct of empirical research on the same topic.

CHAPTER

1
Culture

HARRY C. TRIANDIS AND S. ARZU WASTI

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

Culture is to society what memory is to individuals (C. Kluckhohn, 1954). It consists of what “has worked” in the experience of a group of people so it was worth transmitting to peers and descendants. Another definition of culture was provided by anthropologist Redfield (1954): “Culture is shared understandings made manifest in act and artifact” (p. 1). In short, it is shared behavior and shared human-made aspects of the society. Thus, it includes “practices” (the way things are done here) and “values” (the way things should be done). These older definitions of culture focus on what is outside the person (e.g., do people drive to the right or left). The more recent definitions also stress what is inside the person (e.g., is the self independent or interdependent of in-groups). Almost every aspect of psychological functioning is influenced, to some extent, by culture. Thus, it is best to view culture and psychology as making each other up (Cole, 1996; Shweder, 1990).

We can distinguish material and subjective culture. The tools, dwellings, foods, clothing, pots, machines, roads, bridges, and many other entities that are typically found in a culture are examples of material culture. Subjective culture includes shared ideas, theories, political, religious, scientific, economic, and social standards for judging events in the environment (Triandis, 1972). The language (e.g., the way experience is categorized and organized), beliefs, associations (e.g., what ideas are linked to other ideas), attitudes, norms, role definitions, religion, and values of the culture are some of the elements of a cultural group's subjective culture. Ideas about how to make an item of material culture constitute subjective culture as well (e.g., mathematical equations needed to construct a bridge), so the two kinds of culture are interrelated.

Subjective culture also includes shared memories, ideas about correct and incorrect behavior, the way members of culture view themselves (auto-stereotypes) and other cultural groups (hetero-stereotypes), and the way members of the culture value entities in their environment. Categorizations, associations among the categories, beliefs, expectations (e.g., what behavior will lead to what rewards), norms, role definitions, values, and broad value orientations (e.g., whether humans are intrinsically “good” or “bad”; F. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) are other elements of subjective culture.

Members of different cultures have characteristic lifestyles that correspond to subjective events and shared habits for paying attention to specific aspects of their environment (e.g., cues about hierarchy or hostility), and they weigh these aspects differently (e.g., in hierarchical cultures people weigh cues about hierarchy much more than cues about kindness). Such shared perceptual habits and weightings are parts of subjective culture, too. Beliefs about whether or not one can trust other people, about supernatural beings, about work and about being healthy, and about what happens after death are further aspects of subjective culture. For example, trust in individualist cultures depends on whether or not the other person behaves appropriately and as expected; in collectivist cultures it depends on whether the other person takes into account not only his or her own interests but also the interests of in-group members.

Cultures emerge because ecologies (climate, geographic features, ways of making a living) are different from place to place. For instance, if the environment has fish, people will go fishing, buy and sell fish, cook fish, eat fish, develop a rich lexicon about fish, and so on. They will also have ideas about how, where, when, and with whom to fish. They will value fish, and they may link their religious ideas with fish. They will have theories about how fish developed, ideas about how valuable fish is at different times and places, norms about how, when, and with whom to eat fish, and so on. Fish will be an important element of the economy of the culture, will be on the educational curriculum, and will figure in politics (e.g., one party might advocate restrictions on fishing, whereas another might oppose restrictions). The gods will help or spoil fishing, social life will require exchanges of fish, and so on.

In the following section, several cultural dimensions will be presented. Particular emphasis will be given to collectivism and individualism, as these cultural syndromes have benefited from rich theoretical description and empirical research (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Next, the implications of these cultural dimensions on several organizational phenomena, such as human resource practices, group dynamics, and leadership, will be reviewed by reference to the recent empirical research in the field. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of culture as an indirect but inevitable determinant of individual behavior.

DIMENSIONS OF CULTURAL VARIATION

Cultures differ in myriad ways and a variety of frameworks for examining cultures have been developed over the years. In the following sections, cultural dimensions that have found to be particularly important are presented.

Simple-Complex Cultures

Hunters and gatherers, but also rural cultures, are simpler than industrial societies, information societies, and urban cultures. Between these two extremes are myriad positions, such as slash-and-burn agricultural, agricultural, or industrial cultures.

Tight-Loose Cultures

Some cultures have many rules and norms about behavior and impose these norms tightly. The Taliban in Afghanistan is an example of a tight culture. It had rules about not listening to music, viewing television, flying kites, or committing myriad other “sins.” Anyone who deviated from these norms was severely punished, even by execution. Other cultures are loose, with few rules or norms. Rural Thailand is such a culture. In loose cultures, when people do not do what is expected of them, others do not punish them severely and may even just smile. There are many kinds of smiles, some suggesting criticism, but nevertheless the punishment for deviation from norms is mild.

Collectivism

Collectivism is a cultural pattern found in cultures that tend to be simple, be traditional, and have many rules and norms that are imposed tightly (Triandis, 1988, 1994, 1995). One study of 186 traditional cultures found the Mbuti pygmies of the Congo were the most collectivist (Triandis, 2000). High levels of collectivism are found in rural, homogeneous, isolated cultures with much traditional shared ideology and distinct customs, where there is much discipline and punishment for not doing what the in-group expects. Self-sacrifice for the sake of the in-group is frequent.

This cultural pattern is especially likely when the population density is high, among older members of a culture, among the lower social classes (Kohn, 1969), among those who are religious (Triandis & Singelis, 1998), among those who have experienced much common fate (e.g., were attacked by an out-group), and when individual social mobility is not possible but group social mobility is (e.g., one can get more money by joining a union; Triandis & Trafimow, 2001). Collectivism can be found represented in different domains, such as politics, religion, aesthetics, education, social life, economics, or philosophy. For example, Mao's China was high in collectivism in all those domains. As China has evolved, it first allowed individual expression in the aesthetic fields, then in economics, and in social life. In the future it may allow free expression in the other domains as well.

The self, in such cultures, is perceived as very close to intimate friends and very far from enemies. It is defined by concrete entities (e.g., kinship links) and may change from situation to situation (allies one day may become enemies another day). Collectivists give priority to the goals of their in-groups over their personal goals, they see behavior as a function of both attitudes (what I like to do) and norms (what I should do), and they stay in their groups even when they are not satisfied (e.g., low divorce rates; stay in jobs they dislike). They feel more pride in the achievements of their in-group than in their personal achievements, but they feel guiltier about their transgressions than about those of their in-group. They are easily embarrassed and feel shame for actions inconsistent with in-group norms. Empathy is one of their important attributes. They are more self-critical than individualists.

People in such cultures define themselves by their relationships with groups. However, their self-definition depends on the situation. In such cultures individuals define themselves more often by using social attributes (e.g., I am a member of this group; I am a cousin) than personal attributes (e.g., I am an extrovert, I like classical music). For collectivists, context is all-important, and people are not concerned with contradictions. Thus, a member of this type of culture might say that he is “a meat-eating vegetarian.” When asked to elaborate, he might say he is a vegetarian, but when others eat meat, he eats meat.

Indeed, an important attribute of collectivists is that they emphasize the context of events or stimuli (e.g., the history of an issue). Relationships with in-group members are very different from relationships with out-group members. Collectivists are suspicious of outsiders and distrust even in-group members who they feel may envy them. They perceive their in-groups as more homogeneous than their out-groups. They tend to take much time in social relationships. In fact, even if they have an urgent appointment, they will stop to talk with in-group members and do not mind being late for the appointment.

People in such cultures see the world from the outside in (Cohen, Hoshino-Browne, & Leung, 2007). Thus, they see most entities the way members of their in-group see them; that is, they use the standards of in-group members, especially the standards of their parents, to judge most entities. In a hierarchy of motives, the highest motive is service to the in-group. Ethnocentrism (people's belief that their own culture is the standard and other cultures are good only to the extent that they are like their own culture) tends to be high. They socialize their children by emphasizing obedience, reliability, cleanliness, order, and self-sacrifice within the in-group (Kohn, 1969). Their emotions tend to be engaged (close, friendly, respectful), other-focused, and somewhat self-critical (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Noransakkunkit, 1997). Approval by others is an especially strong predictor of satisfaction in those cultures. East Asian collectivists do not display emotions in the presence of others. These attributes of collectivism may also occur in other collectivist cultures, such as those of Africa and South America, but there are no data as yet to confirm that they do occur in all collectivist cultures.

Collectivists feel a strong link to in-groups (family, tribe, village, race, religion, country, athletic team, social class). They feel sad and may cry when others are sick, absent, or die. They share their successes and failures with their in-groups. An important goal of collectivists is to fulfill their duties and obligations toward their in-groups. Collectivists see personal traits as malleable, whereas they see the social environment as fixed. Thus, they see people ready to fit into different groups. Social behavior in such cultures tends to include few but long-term and very strong links with others. People have relatively few skills for entering new groups. They tend to do what other people do much more often than people in other cultures (Bond & Smith, 1996). They are likely to help others out of duty rather than because they like them. In recreation they join relatively large stable groups (more than three persons) and rarely enjoy themselves when alone.

People in collectivist cultures expect in-group members to be supportive and helpful and are rarely directly critical. Others are supposed to behave so that they will be perceived as being “nice” (simpatico in Spanish, sympatique in French; Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). On the other hand, out-group members are expected to be hostile and untrustworthy, so one is justified to behave harshly toward them. Because in such cultures maintaining good social relationships is very important, people try to save both their own face and that of the person with whom they are interacting. They often speak indirectly and may not disclose their beliefs until they know the beliefs of the other person. They use more concrete than abstract language; for example, they tend to use more action verbs than adjectives (e.g., they may say, “He did not say a word to me all evening,” instead of “He is hostile.”)

Collectivists do not have strong opinions, and they are likely to change their views when others have different opinions. They tend to see even physical causality as due to external forces (e.g., gravity) instead of internal forces (e.g., weight). Motivation increases following failure in these cultures, because failure is not as ego threatening (it is shared with the in-group) as it is in individualist cultures, and individuals tend to accept criticism because it leads to self-improvement.

East Asian collectivists think circularly (if something is good it will become bad, and later it will become good again) and holistically (everything is related to everything else). They use dialectical thinking (both the pro and the con aspects of an issue may have some validity depending on the context), value moderation, and tolerate contradictions, as each view may be correct in some contexts (Nisbett, 2003). They do not make the fundamental attribution error (observers see the behavior of others as due to internal factors, when the others report that their behavior is due to external factors) as frequently as do people in individualistic cultures. They are more comfortable with concrete than abstract concepts. They classify objects by focusing on relationships (e.g., cows are classified together with grass rather than with pigs). They are high in field dependence. They value what is old and common more than what is new and uncommon. They avoid confrontations and prefer methods of conflict resolution that do not destroy relationships (e.g., mediation). They see achieving a good relationship as the best outcome in conflict situations (Leung, 1997).

Morality in such cultures does not necessarily take the form found in individualist cultures (Kohlberg, 1981) but focuses instead on what is good for the in-group (Triandis, 1994). Unethical behavior that helps the in-group (e.g., lying, corruption) is more acceptable in collectivist than in individualist cultures (Triandis et al., 2001). They are more likely to punish than to reward others. When discussing others (e.g., their children), they are more likely to talk about their transgressions than about their achievements. When distributing resources within the in-group, they prefer the equality norm to the equity norm. When deciding how to divide rewards, bonuses, or provide recognition, they place more emphasis on good interpersonal relationships (e.g., that a person is “nice”) than on performance. When collectivists break a norm, they tend to apologize rather than justify their actions.

Brewer and Chen (2007) make a distinction between two kinds of collectivism: relational and group. In relational collectivism, the individual has close ties with others. In group collectivism, the individual forgets who he or she is and replaces the self with the group. In short, the former kind of collectivism is personalized, whereas the latter is depersonalized. They show that when this distinction is made, many anomalous findings fall in place. For example, East Asians are relational collectivists, but Americans are both individualists and group collectivists. Thus, in all cultures there are three ...

Table des matières

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Series in Applied Psychology
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Series Foreword
• 1 Culture
• 2 A Model of the Influence of Cultural Values on Job Application Intentions and Behaviors
• 3 The Clash Between “Best Practices” for Selection and National Culture
• 4 Culture and Human Resource Management Practices: Personnel Selection Based on Personality Measures
• 5 Designing and Delivering Training for Multicultural Interactions in Organizations
• 6 Culture Diversity and Performance Appraisal Systems
• 7 Culture, Feedback, and Motivation
• 8 Compensation and Reward Systems in a Multicultural Context
• 9 Cultural Variations in Employee Assistance Programs in an Era of Globalization
• 10 Work and Family Concerns and Practices: A Cross-National and -Cultural Comparison of Ireland and the United States
• 11 A Sensemaking Approach to Understanding Multicultural Teams: An Initial Framework
• 12 Culture and Human Resource Management: Prospects for the Future
• Author Index
• Subject Index