Models of National Culture (A Management Review)

Summary:

The author of this article is Tony Morden, who is Principal Lecturer of the School of Business and
Management, UK. The basic aim/purpose of this article is to discuss different types of models
which describe national culture. In discussion, the author is summarized, analyzed and compared
these models. Moreover, the author also discusses that how these models have some relationship
with the study and the practice of local and international management. The article starts with the
definition of national culture that is given by the Hofstede and Fukuyama, then it also describes
the cross cultural purpose of that models of national culture. In discussion, the author summarized,
analyzed and compared these models. These models of national culture are; 1) Single Dimension
Models 2) Multiple Dimension Models 3) Historical Social Models. The application of these
models was based on polycentric, instead of universalistic or ethnocentric base, regarding the
process and practice of management. Finally, the article concludes with the comparison of all the
models that have been discussed in detail within the article. According to Hofstede national culture
is “The collective mental programming” in which people share a collective national character that
develops values, behavior, attitude and the priority of the nationality of that people, while
according to Fukuyama national culture is “Inherited ethical habit” means the idea, value or
relationship that creates ethical code so society control the behavior.

Management has need to get sufficient knowledge and experience regarding national and
international culture in which they work, so they can better understand different cultures and
compare them to work efficiently in different cultures. If management has sufficient knowledge
about a culture, they can enter in the new market efficiently to mitigate risk regarding new
entrance. The management theories that are presented by different theorists, can’t apply in every
culture, in other words these theories are not universally valid or applicable, because the theorists
are belonged to a culture and the values, believes and norms of that culture affects the thinking
and writing of that theorists, so they are culturally biased. Therefore, Hofstede proposed that, this
is not necessarily that a management theory would be given the same result in different cultures.

Page | 1
Morden is also against the concept of the ethnocentric and universalistic approach of management
theories which means management theories can apply in different countries and different culture,
instead Morden believes that cultural models are polycentric basis and locally appropriate models
of natural culture should be applied due to the differentiation from culture to culture. There are
two reasons which support Morden point of view and that are; 1) Best fit and 2) Polycentricity.
Best fit or contingency approach: suggests that there should use a flexible management style
according to the different situations (Different cultures), because organizations are individually
different and they face different situations from one another, so they required different ways
(models) to managing the organization. Polycentricity: Term polycentricity is defined by
Purlmutter as it is the extent of acceptance and use of the cultural diversity, while cultural diversity
is that the variety of cultural or ethical groups live within the society. So, due to polycentricity
within the society, locally adopted management culture, which is required by the society, is more
useful.

Single dimension models of national culture are based on the single dimension or variable. In
this article, three single dimension models have been discussed. The first single dimension model
is about the high and low context cultures: Context means that how people within a society want
to get knowledge and information. If people want to get knowledge and information through a
personal information network like as they prefer to discuss the matter with friends or colleagues
before taking any decisions, they come under a high context culture. If people want to get
knowledge and information through the research base approach like as they prefer to read reports,
information sourced and data base before taking any decisions, therefore information sources like
as E-mail and internet are more important for them, so they come under a low context culture.
Second single dimension model is about the monochronic and polychronic cultures: If people
within a society or culture have highly concern to do one thing at a time within the set time scale,
they consider time as a scarce resource and work within the fixed schedule, they come under a
monochronic culture. If people within a society or culture have highly concern to do multiple
things at a time with no specific set time scale, they don’t consider time as a scarce resource, don’t
follow punctuality and work within the flexible schedule, they come under a polychronic culture.
Third single dimension model is about the Fukuyama’s Analysis of trust: In this model,
Fukuyama compares two societies or cultures on the basis of trust. If people within a society or
culture develop a flexible environment in their workplace, prefer group work and delegate
Page | 2
responsibilities to the lower level people, they come under a high trust society. If people within a
society or culture develop a flexible environment in their workplace, prefer group work and
delegate responsibilities to the lower level people, they come under a high trust society. If people
within a society or culture develop a rigid environment in their workplace, prefer individual work
and isolate the workers by applying the bureaucratic rules, they come under a low trust society.

Multiple dimension models of national culture are based on multiple dimensions or variables.
In this article, three multiple dimension models have been discussed. The first multiple dimension
model is the Hofstede’s Model: Hofstede’s model of national culture based on six variables; 1)
Power Distance: It describes that how people within a culture or society deals the inequality
among them in the sense of social and status levels, either it is low or high. 2) Uncertainty
Avoidance: It describes that how much extent people deal with risk, either it is low or high. 3)
Individualism vs Collectivism: It describes either individual life belongs to him/her
(individualism) or belongs to the group, community or society (collectivism). 4) Masculinity vs
Femininity: It describes that how much extent people within a society or culture differentiate men
and women, either highly differentiate or low differentiate. 5) Long term vs Short term
Orientation: It describes that how much extent people within a society or culture concern about
the future, either they focus on the future or more concern about present or past than future. 6)
Indulgence vs Restraint: It describes that how much extent people within a society or culture
apply strict norms on free gratification, either free gratification allows or apply strict norms on free
gratification. Second, multiple dimension model is called Hampden-turner and Trompenaars
Analysis, in which the Hampden-turner and Trompenaars proposed that value system of the
enterprises face some problems regarding different situations. They indicated seven situations and
also suggested some solutions to the problem that could occur due to different situations. 1)
Making rules and managing exceptions: This situation lies between universalism to
particularism. They suggested that an organization should apply some bureaucratic rules to control
consistency and continuity, but it may have some exceptions for change and innovation. 2)
Deconstructing and constructing: This situation lies between analyzing approach to integrating
approach. They suggested that an organization should use both approaches in their intellectual
process to find out the solutions. 3) Managing communities or individuals: This situation lies
between individualism to communitarianism. They suggested that an organization should motivate
individual employees as well as concern with the community (organization). 4) Internalizing the
Page | 3
outside world: his situation lies between inner directed to outer directed, which is also called
boundary management. They suggested that an organization should set directions and purposes by
itself as well as consider external forces which affect organization’s directions and purposes. 5)
Synchronizing time processes: In this situation, the value system focuses on two factors of time.
i) Length of time: Management must decide a time horizon, either shorter or longer ii) Speed or
synchronization: Management should choose either to work quickly or synchronize the events in
sequences (Just in time approach). 6) Achieves status vs ascribed status: Organization should
follow both approaches as to some extent people should give status on personal achievement but
also some status should be given on the basis of some attributes like as seniority, age or education
etc. 7) Equality vs hierarchy: Organization should set some value regarding equality or hierarchy.
Third multiple dimension model is called Lessem and Neubauer’s Analysis. They analyzed the
European management system. They discussed that four situations that have interrelation between
two situations, and these situations affect national culture. The first situation is called Pragmatism:
Which has some characteristics like as focus on empirical evidence rather than experience, focus
on individualistic and action oriented culture, etc. The second situation is called Rationalism:
Which has some characteristics like as positions are more important than people, as follow Max
weber’s theory of bureaucracy, professional management and value planning etc. The third
situation is called Wholism: Which has some characteristics like as focus on integration and
cooperation among people and system oriented etc. The fourth situation is called Humanism:
Which has some characteristics like as more concern with social life and mankind culture,
flexibility and friendly management style etc.

Historical social models of national culture are based on historical social dimensions or
variables. In historical social models, the first model Euromanagement study has been discussed
which was conducted in fourteen European countries. This model has some characteristics like as
the capability to manage the diversity in International level, focus on people and social
responsibility, focus on internal relations and formal management style etc. Second model is called
South East Asian Management model, in which mainly Chinese culture models have been
discussed. First one is called Taoism: Which basically follow Yin yang theory, in which things
are views as in relation to its whole, means focus on oneness and change is inevitable. Second
model is called Confucianism: Confucianism model was presented by Chinese wise man
Confucius. It follows ethical and society based culture. In this model, societal benefit is more

Page | 4
important than individual benefits. Third model is called The role of the Mandarin: Then
mandarin comes which mean to command. They considered as a hard worker, leaders. Guanxi
relate with Maintaining, Developing personal relationships during favors, whereas friendship
considered as secondary. Then the person’s dignity self-respect comes out which is said to be a
Face of person and important like organs of a body .Five cardinal relations are discussed in detail
these are ;sincerity between son & father ,righteousness between subject & ruler, sincerity between
friends, difference between younger and older brother and husband and wife separation. Two
types of this relation model predetermined relationships and voluntary constructed. Finally The
Taipans model is discussed, Cragg defined the Taipans which means big boss or ruler, its
characteristics are the strongly autocratic style, risk takers, entrepreneurial, exploiting immediate
opportunities and quality of quick decision making etc.

In comparing all these models there are a lot of the features has been discussed in multiple
dimension models and historical social models as compare to single dimension models, because
these models have concerns with multiple variable discussion in culture, in contrast single
dimension models of national culture.

Page | 5
References:

1) https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-
culture/
2) https://study.com/academy/lesson/long-term-orientation-
vs-short-term-orientation-hofstedes-definition-lesson-
quiz.html
3) Article: Models of National Culture (A Management
Review)

Page | 6