Riding The Waves of Culture

2009

The past few decades have seen a tremendous growth in work patterns that involve social actors from different cultural backgrounds interacting with one another, as shown by the increase in number and forms of international staff (Collings, Scullion, & Morley, 2007) or the rise in the formation of international joint ventures (Pothukuchi, Damanpour, Choi, Chen, & Park, 2002). Even actors whose scope of activity is limited to a domestic context are likely to be exposed to foreign cultures as they collaborate with co-workers, partners, suppliers and clients from different ethnic and cultural origins. Although research at the interface between the domestic and international context is still relatively scarce, for example as illustrated by the limited attention that local nationals have received in international assignment research (Toh & DeNisi, 2007; Vance, Vaiman, & Andersen, 2009), scholars widely agree that culture transcends and thus forms an integral part of many aspects in business. One stream of research has explored the multiple layers that constitute culture and that differ in terms of their degree of tangibility and visibility, distinguishing between observable artifacts and behaviors, deeper-level values and basic assumptions (e.g., Schein, 1992). In this vein, existing cross-cultural research has mainly conceptualized culture as a system of shared,

Different national cultures comprise different cultural value systems. The value systems are generated from a conception, or as noted previous beliefs, of existing means or resources, and necessities. Cultures have various standards and some factors such as behaviors, traditions or communication of one culture can be observed as irrelevant or sometimes even threatening by other cultures.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2006

2009

Journal of Intercultural Management, 2014

Although culture has been discussed in quite some detail, it remains an elusive concept, whether on content or in terms of consequences. Indeed, culture does not exist in a physical form (although bumping your nose to culture may be a near physical experience) and may be rather considered as a label people use to describe patterns of thinking and acting of a group of people. Many studies of culture start from theory and move to implementation. This paper is based on an opposite approach. Its basis is the experience of 849 MA students with living and working abroad and the effects of culture in reality. In an inductive way this experience results in a mind-map of culture.The aim of this paper is to present a rather comprehensive perception of culture on the basis of experience; not to give an overview of what culture might be according to the literature. This concept is the initial result of an on-going programme at the R&D Centre of the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences. Cons...

people, 2017

The point that is stressed by definitions of culture, which rely on its authenticity and considerations that it entails individuality (diversity), is its diversity. Being diverse and acknowledgement of authenticity of the diversity, involves forwardness in itself. Though the acknowledgement of diversity and the impression of integrity formed by the acknowledgement seem to pose a coherence, yet it bears a negative aspect internally. Despite so-called acknowledgement of diversity, coherence and integrity formation seem to be more important. Since coherence of the integrity is based on measures of the seeking subject, forwardness aims to preserve things that are available or to simply fill the gaps. Hence complexity and diversity bear a negative meaning for available things. Because of centered approach which basically is putting familiar things into a closer circle while putting others aside. It brings concretization to the culture. To the extent of concretization endeavor, it leads us to study culture as belonging to a society (the privatization aim here even breaks down culture to a subculture level). Concretization of culture itself might seem as understanding and acknowledgement of culture, however, the aim for making a definition involves detaching the existent from existence forms and from the environment that it exists in. This article is to discuss, with philosophical terms, how different cultures embrace sincerity in exposing themselves while interacting with other cultures given our definitions of culture and the seeking for multiculturalism. Thanks to developments in transportation and means of technology, different cultures and societies meet and interact easily. Though we have a heritage of drawing borders, these borders hardly preserve their existence. The issues under discussion have evolved from the endeavor to build a common identity-culture-society to acknowledgement of diversity and difference.

Organizational culture was initially thought to be monumental that could easily be conceptualized but globalization has challenged this notion. Culture the multifaceted concept of shared beliefs, philosophies, values, norms, customs and mental programming is no longer static but volatile. Most scholars argue that free movement of political, economic and cultural resources between and within countries has facilitated the change in culture as the elements interact during the movement of various cultures. Conceptualization of culture with volatile boundaries and dynamic nature calls for proper understanding of the movement in culture with its cognitive elements. Theoretical explanation of cultural movement through convergence, divergence and crossvergence attempts to explain the movement of culture. This process transforms cultures through conflict and stress which affects boundaries and elements of culture leading to shifts through natural adaptive mechanisms. Traditional management was not interested in organization environment but the paradigm shift of static culture has brought in new management concepts that are mindful about organizational culture and dynamics of its environment. The paper undertakes to define culture explain constituents of culture, the concept of national culture and organizational culture, theories convergence, divergence and crossvergence of cultural movement and contemporary factors influencing cultural movement. The paper strongly advocates for management to understand the cultural elements in order to effectively manage diversity. 1.0 Background Culture has variously been defined from different perspectives due to different contexts, time, society, organization, and nationality. Jacques (1952:251) defines culture as a customary and traditional way of thinking and doing things, which is shared to a greater or less degree by all its members and which members must learn, and at least partially accept, in order to be accepted into service in the firm. Hagget (1975:238) defines culture as a description of patterns of behaviour that form a durable template by which ideas and images can be transferred from one generation to another. On the other hand Swartz & Davis (1981:33) define culture as a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization members, responsible for production of norms and powerfully shape the behaviour of individuals and groups in the organization. Lorsch (1986:95) defines culture as shared beliefs top managers have about how they should manage themselves and other employees, and how they should conduct business. Lorsch looked at culture from the perspective of managers working towards transforming the culture of the organization unlike other scholars. Louis (1983:39) defines organization's culture as a bearing milleux, that is, they are distinctive social units possessed of a set of common understanding. Similarly Shein (1985:6) defines culture as a pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to these problems. This is closely related to Van Maanen (1988:3) who defined culture as knowledge members of a given group are thought to more or less share; knowledge of the sort that is said to form, embed, shape, and account for routine and not so-routine activities of the members of the culture... a culture is expressed (or constituted) only through the actions and words of its members and must be interpreted by a given a fieldworker...culture is not itself visible, but is made visible only through its representation. This notion has been argued by various scholars like Kotter and Hesket (1992), define " culture as shared values (that define what is important) and norms that define appropriate attitudes and behaviors for organizational members (how to feel and behave). " This is in agreement with Rousseau (1990), who also asserted that system of shared values and norms. Trice and Beyer (1993:2), cultures are collective phenomena that embody people's responses to the uncertainties and chaos that are inevitable in human experience. These responses fall into two major categories. The first is the substance of culture-shared, emotionally charged belief systems that we call ideologies. The second cultural forms-observable entities, including actions, through which members of a culture express, affirm, and communicate the substance of their culture to one another. Culture is a multifaceted concept of peoples shared people's beliefs, philosophies, norms, customs and mental programming of a group of people (Hofstede 1981, 1983, 1997, & 2001).

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2009