THE EFFECTS OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ON THE
WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGERS IN
CROSS-BORDER PARTNERSHIPS
A Case Study in the Czech Republic and Slovakia
Preface
And there we are. The final steps in the completion of my studies at the University of Groningen have arrived. The journey that started back in 2000 has come to an end, now that exams have been passed and I am finalising my thesis. The end of an era is drawing near, and I realise that it fills me with mixed emotions. It is the feeling of leaving something valuable behind while standing at the brink of a new stage in life. One step, and all that’s left are memories. A feeling of accomplishment stands side-by-side with a look over the shoulder.
For the last couple of years, a significant part of my life has been about books, theories, preparations, and exams; about lectures and tutorials, about assignments and presentations. Courses were started and completed, some with more enthusiasm than others, some promptly and others languidly. Although I never experienced it at the time, in retrospect all these single courses seem part of a greater whole, obstacles on the road to accomplishment. With every step, an obscure end goal drew nearer: graduation.
They say that it is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back and, having spent the last months working on this paper, I cannot argue with such a notion. Notwithstanding kind advice and sincere words of warning, I was unpleasantly surprised by the sheer amount of work that the writing of a thesis demands, and progress was, at times, sluggish. More often than not I had to overcome my own reluctance in the morning when I sat down behind my computer, surrounded by books, articles, and an ocean of notes.
The article in front of you is the tangible result of the last couple of years in general and the last couple of months in particular. Personal growth mapped out on paper. Before I leave you though, allow me to thank the people who made this possible. My family and friends for their support and motivation (“are you finished yet?”). All the volunteers who participated in filling out the questionnaire. Andrew Grech for granting me the opportunity to hand them out in the first place and the warm welcome in Prague. Above all, I would like to thank Dirk Akkermans, for his continued enthusiasm, positive criticism, and expertise. Thank you for all those surprisingly pleasant Monday afternoons spent brainstorming and evaluating theories.
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. THEORETICAL MODEL 7
3. THE OUTSOURCING SITUATION 10
3.1. Outsourcing 10
3.2. Organisation within the Outsourcing Supply Centre 11
3.3. Role of the Project 12
3.4. Contact 14
3.5. Perrow and Communication 15
3.6. Degree of Routineness and Communication 16
3.7. Cross-Cultural Interaction 18
4. DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURE 19
4.1. Definitions of Culture 19
4.2. National Culture 20
4.3. Cultural Dimensions of Values 21
4.4. Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Examined 22
5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGERS 27
7. RESULTS 48
7.1. General Respondent Characteristics 49
7.2. Summary of Hypothesis Results 49
7.3. Working Relationship Duration 51
7.4. Dealing With A Replacement 52
7.5. Standardisation of Procedures 53
7.6. Professional and Personal Relationships 54
7.7. Unsupported Hypotheses 55
7.8. Moderating Variable 57
8. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 59
8.1. Imbalanced Business Relationship 59
8.2. Aged Framework 60
8.3. Recruiting and Subsamples 61
8.4. Organisational Culture 61
8.5. Conclusion 62
8.6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY 64
APPENDIX A – THE QUESTIONNAIRE 68
APPENDIX B – FACTOR ANALYSIS 74
APPENDIX C – FREQUENCIES AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS 75
APPENDIX D – STATISTICS FOR UNSUPPORTED HYPOTHESES 77
1. Introduction
Continually increasing globalisation has led to many cross-border business activities, international cooperation, and global partnerships. Borders are slowly fading and organisations increasingly acknowledge the harvest to be reaped from operating across borders. Roles in such organisations are affected by the fact that employees come to deal with more and more foreign counterparts in their daily activities. Contact between partner employees gains an international dimension and, with it, an intercultural aspect.
Although it is widely believed that diversity can have clear benefits, it is always stressed that this will depend greatly on how diversity is managed. A manager should have thorough knowledge of the people he deals with and enable the organisation to benefit from the different perspectives and backgrounds that accompany a diversified workforce. An interesting question arises when focusing not on the way the manager handles his subordinates but moving up a notch on the hierarchical ladder.
In cross-border partnerships, managers may find themselves dealing not only with a culturally diverse workforce, but also with managers of the partner organisation whose background, work methods, and perspectives may differ substantially from their own. Different cultures in different nations can affect the way in which people perceive and treat each other, and since people will always be the ones running an organisation, culture can greatly affect the success of a partnership.
Expanding on earlier research, this paper is aimed at examining the role of cultural differences on the effectiveness of the working relationship between managers of partner organisations. Specifically, the significance of different national cultures in cross-border relationships will be explored through their effects on routine activities like negotiations and meetings. The main research question will be as follows:
In order to answer this question, a number of subquestions has been developed, dividing the main topic into smaller segments. Each of the following subquestions will be answered in the subsequent chapters, and will be briefly touched upon in the theoretical model. Exhibit 2.2. shows the relationship between the items introduced in the subquestions.
Subquestions will be as follows:
1. “What are the most important characteristics of national cultures?”
2. “Which aspects of the interaction between managers in a cross-border partnership are most likely the subject of friction?”
3. “Which differences in the cultural background of managers influence which aspects of their relationship, and how?”
2. Theoretical Model
As mentioned, the aim of this paper is to examine the influence of cultural differences on cross-border working relationships between managers. In specific, it is aimed at identifying whether differences in the cultural background of both managers leads to the creation of problems in their daily activities and cooperation. The main interest lies in work methods, implying that the focus is on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour. In the following, I suggest that cultural differences have a (partly) negative effect on manager cooperation by paving the road to misunderstanding and disagreement.
The main theoretical model is depicted in exhibit 2.1, showing the relationship between the two variables – cultural differences and disparity in work methods and attitude. A third variable – working relationship duration – is a variable that influences the relationship between the other two variables. Specifically, I suggest that a longer period of cooperation will lead to a diminished effect of cultural differences and therefore less disagreement concerning methods and attitude between the involved managers.
In this paper culture refers to national culture, that is, the culture that is prevalent in the countries of origin of the people involved in the research. Since it is debatable that a single culture exists within national boundaries, a national culture presents the central tendency that exists within nations - an average that captures the values of all those representing a nation. Cultural differences are measured by means of the national scores on value dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede in his study of IBM employees.
Exhibit 2.1 – Main Theoretical Model DISPARITY IN WORK METHODS & ATTITUDE WORKING RELATIONSHIP DURATION CULTURAL DIFFERENCES DISPARITY IN WORK METHODS & ATTITUDE WORKING RELATIONSHIP DURATION CULTURAL DIFFERENCES A B
The disparity in work methods and attitudes (DWMA) variable is represented by aspects of the working relationship between managers from different cultures that are most likely to be subject to friction arising from differences in attitudes, beliefs, and work procedures. In any business partnership, employees of the parties involved on both sides need to work together in pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. In this research, I have identified a number of areas in which problems may arise due to cultural differences between managers: (1) leadership style; (2) rules and regulations; (3) openness to change; (4) work relationship vs. personal relationship; (5) manager competencies; and (6) the role of work in life.
The working relationship duration (WRD) variable has a contingent effect on the relationship between the independent variable (cultural differences) and the dependent variable (disparity in work methods and attitude). Working relationship duration is measured in months, counting the number of years that have elapsed since the managers started dealing with one another and working together. The hypotheses designed to identify the effect of cultural differences, will also be tested to see whether there are differences in outcomes for short and lengthier working relationships.
Exhibit 2.2 – Specific Relationships Between Items Uncertainty Avoidance Power Distance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity Leadership Style Openness to Change Work and Personal Relationship Manager Competencies Role of Work in Life Rules and Regulations
H1: The high-PDI managers will believe the low-PDI managers need to show more authority H2: The high-UAI managers will believe that low-UAI managers should use increased structure
and standardisation in their work methods H3: The high-UAI managers will regard the low
UAI-managers as creating insecurity by using novel solutions and straying from conventional means
H4: The low-IDV managers will believe the high-IDV managers do not spend enough time to get to know
one another in a business relationship H5: The low-IDV managers will regard the replacement of a contact detrimental to an
existing working relationship H6: The high-MAS managers will believe
that the low-MAS managers lack what it takes to be a good manager H7: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack commitment
to the working relationship
Working Relationship Duration
H8: The lengthier the working relationship, the smaller perceived differences in behaviour between managers on both sides of the cross-border partnership will be
3. The Outsourcing Situation
The organisation subject to this research is a large multinational corporation that operates in a great number of countries around the globe, in consulting and outsourcing. The research is conducted within a division of this corporation that is specialised in offering outsourcing solutions to its clients through what is known as business process outsourcing.
3.1. Outsourcing
Outsourcing has been defined by Lankford and Parsa (1999) as “the procurement of products or services from sources that are external to the organisation.” In outsourcing, an organisation buys products or services from outside supplier rather than produce them itself. The supplier is said to manage a share of the organisation’s activities on the organisation’s behalf. In business process outsourcing (BPO), the outside supplier of the product or service not only takes responsibility of taking over the function or business process, but it also redevelops the way in which it is done. This is what makes it different from, for example, ‘contracting out’ agreements, since control over how the process is carried out is shifted. In BPO it is the supplier who decides how to do its job; the buyer merely specifies which standards the purchased results (products or services) should meet. In the current case, the fact that the outsourcing supply centres are located in the Czech and Slovak Republic and that clients are based outside the former Czechoslovak area implies that the situation that results can be described as cross-national BPO.
3.2. Organisation within the Outsourcing Supply Centre
The case of the outsourcing supply centres in Slovakia and the Czech Republic involves financial activities that have been taken on from outsourcers. Control over the financial operations of the outsourcing companies has been transferred to a ‘shared service centre’, in which the outside supplier takes advantage of economies of scale by delivering similar services to several outsourcers from within a single facility. Regarding the activities, these can be brought back to ensuring on the one hand that invoice payments are collected and on the other that amounts due are fulfilled in good time. The way in which they perform these tasks can be decided by the supplier, as long as the results are in line with what has been agreed upon with the outsourcer in what is known as Service Level Agreements, or SLAs. Service levels are determined at the outset of an outsourcing agreement, and are used to measure and monitor a supplier’s performance (Bendor Samuel, 2007, www.outsourcingFAQ.com). Service levels are measured in terms of their living up to the service level agreements, the collection of which constitute the service contract.
On practical terms, this arrangement means that different units of operation have been established in the shared service centre in the form of projects, each of which is assigned an outsourcer whose financial operations it is responsible for. A project deals with a sole outsourcing company, assuming responsibility of activities that were carried out by an inside division before the outsourcing agreement was established.
Exhibit 3.1 – Organisational Chart for a Project in the SSC Team Leader 1 Team 1 Project Leader Team 2 Team 3
Level 3: Operating Core Level 2: Middle Line Level 1: Strategic Apex
Level 3: Operating Core Level 2: Middle Line Level 1: Strategic Apex
Level 3: Operating Core Level 2: Middle Line Level 1: Strategic Apex Team 3 Team 2 Team Leader 3 Team Leader 2
3.3. Role of the Project
When comparing the initial situation before outsourcing to the situation with the outsourcing agreement in place, it becomes clear that the project in the supplier’s shared service centre has taken an intermediary position in the relation between the outsourcer and its customers and vendors.
Exhibit 3.2 – The contact role of the shared service centre COMPANY CUSTOMERS & VENDORS OUTSOURCING COMPANY CUSTOMERS & VENDORS SSC PROJECT A. Initial Situation B. Outsourcing Situation
X X’
Y
Z
With the outsourcing agreement in place, the responsibility over the financial operations of the company is outsourced to the outside supplier, which sets up a project in its shared service centre accordingly. The new situation is depicted in the diagram on the right-hand of exhibit 3.2. (diagram B), where there is no longer a direct connection between the company (now outsourced company) and its customers and vendors. Note that this concerns only the outsourced operations, which means that other activities (e.g., customer service, sales) will still involve direct contact with customers and vendors. For financial operations, the outside supplier is the one responsible for inherent tasks, which includes maintaining contact with customers and vendors.
Fundamentally, both relationship ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ involve a clash of cultures. Since the outsourcing companies are based abroad (from the perspective of the outside supplier) and in many cases are multinationals themselves, the result is that Czech and Slovak (supplier) employees are dealing with people from a multitude of other nationalities in their daily work. More in-depth analysis of the relationships follows in chapter 5 of the paper, where both will be closer examined.
3.4. Contact
As a contributor to the outsourcing organisation’s total operations, the supplier’s project still intermittently needs to communicate with the other divisions of the outsourcing organisation. For example, concerning accounts payable, end responsibility of the financial operations within the outsourcing firm may still lie with the outsourcer’s financial manager, who may be the one approving payments to vendors. Those working at the organisation’s storehouse may need to be contacted in order to find out whether all components of an order were delivered before an invoice is approved for payment. Customer service may need to be consulted if a customer refuses to pay an invoice because of incongruence with an order or worksheet. On a higher level, negotiation may take place in order to facilitate the cooperation between the project and the rest of the outsourcing organisation. When friction arises between both sides of the agreement, those in charge will need to address these issues and iron out the creases.
At the same time, the outsourcing agreement has employees at the outside supplier become the main point of contact for customers and vendors that previously dealt simply with the outsourcer itself. When customers have queries about invoices, or vendors wish to be informed about the status of an outstanding payment, they will now deal with the outside supplier. For specific cases, a steady working relationship may develop as contact becomes repetitive and people get used to doing business with one another. In these situations of recurring contact, the suppliers’ employees will cooperate rather intensively with customers and vendors.
Having established that there is still an amount of communication that takes place between the outside supplier’s project and the different divisions of the outsourcing organisation in the outsourcing situation (diagram B, arrow ‘Y’), and between the project and customers and vendors (diagram B, arrow ‘Z’), the next point of interest is the intensity and frequency of contact between the outside supplier and the outsourcing company. Taking the project as a vantage point, we can explore the role of communication in the different levels that comprise the unit. Borrowing from Perrow’s work on knowledge technology, I propose that communication intensity and frequency increase when moving from the work floor up towards the project leader. The more routine tasks an employee’s work contains, the smaller the need for consultation and discussion with parts of the outsourcing organisation.
3.5. Perrow and Communication
Following Perrow (1967), who studied knowledge technology (as opposed to production technology), two dimensions of work activities that are relevant to organisation structure and process can be specified: task variety and problem analysability. Task variety concerns the frequency of unexpected and novel events that occur in the conversion process, where analysability refers to the degree to which tasks can be broken down into mechanical steps and participants can follow an objective, computational procedure to solve problems (Daft, 2001; Robbins & Barnwell, 2002). Technology, in Perrow’s work, is defined as “the action that an individual performs upon an object, with or without the aid of tools of mechanical devices, in order to make some change in that object” (Perrow, 1967; in Robbins & Barnwell, 2002: p.205).
Exhibit 3.3 – Perrow’s Knowledge Technology Classification ANALYSABILITY Low High VARIETY Low High Craft Nonroutine Routine Engineering Routi ne Nonro utine
[Source: Adopted from R. Daft (2001), Organization Theory and Design]
3.6. Degree of Routineness and Communication
Within the project and perhaps in financial departments in general, work tends to be more standardised the more we move down to the operational level. There, the work consists mainly of repetitious tasks with few exceptions (processing orders, creating invoices, registering payments, and so forth), and employees adhere to well-tried methods and procedures in order to complete their work. Ascending the rungs of the hierarchical ladder, employees start to face more variety in their work, and encountered problems become more intricate.
Moving back to communication, there is a negative relationship between the degree of routineness and the intensity and frequency of communication between employees in the supplier’s project and their counterparts in the outsourcing organisation. The more routine the tasks of employees are, the fewer unexpected and novel events occur and the more easily problems can be analysed. Because of this there is a smaller need for consultation of those in other divisions; employees know what to do, and need not confer with those outside their unit to solve problems should these occur.
Conversely, in positions that involve a high level of novelty and unexpected incidents and in which problems are more difficult to analyse, employees may find that they need check with those outside their own unit to discuss problems and invent ways of dealing with novel situations. A lower degree of routineness is therefore associated with a greater need for communication, as can be seen in exhibit 3.4. Communication between the outside supplier and the outsourcer takes place mainly on level 1 and 2: project leader and team leaders. Most contact will take place at team leader level, since team leaders are responsible for the daily operations of the project, whereas the project leader acts more as a supervisor and visionary. Only when problems cannot be resolved by team leaders will the project leader be involved in the matter.
Exhibit 3.4 – Degree of Routineness and Communication
Project Leader Team Leader 2 Team Leader 1 Team Leader 3 Routine Nonroutine No Contact with Outsourcer Intense Contact with Outsourcer
3.7. Cross-Cultural Interaction
Since the parties of the outsourcing agreement (the outsourcer and outside supplier) are based in different countries and employ mainly home-country nationals, communication between the outsourced unit and the client organisation can be described as cross-cultural, where ‘cultural’ in this case refers to the prevailing culture in each country (i.e., national culture). With employees from country A in the project of the shared service centre and employees from country B in the client organisation, every interaction between members of both sides involves a clash of different cultural backgrounds. For example, every time a Czech employee in the supplier’s project consults a British counterpart in the outsourcing company, national cultures play a role. Both carry a cultural weight typical to their national background, and differences between these backgrounds may affect the way in which communication occurs and its outcomes.
4. Dimensions of National Culture
Investigating the relationship between cultural differences and the daily operations of managers within cross-border partnerships is an impossible task without having established clear ideas of the concepts involved, thus abolishing possible ambiguity. This chapter focuses on the cultural side of the equation, answering the following subquestion: “What are the most important characteristics of national cultures?”
Culture is by no means a concept that allows for easy descriptions, and as such there are about as many definitions and descriptions of culture as there are scholars touching on the subject. Definitions of culture seem to be almost like opinions; everyone has their own, where some people agree and others agree to disagree. Over the decades, a plethora of research has been carried out, touching various aspects of culture and its numerous effects on behaviour and interaction between people. The focus ranges from individual to collective level and from national to organisational culture, but most researchers start by describing what exactly is captured by the concept ‘culture’.
4.1. Definitions of Culture
Definitions of culture range from short, simple descriptions to broader, more encompassing portrayals, results often reflecting goals. Triandis and Suh (2002) compiled several interesting approaches to culture in their paper on culture and personality. What culture is to society has been compared to what memory is to an individual (Kluckhohn, 1954), and culture has been compared to an epidemic in that ideas can be spread across people (Sperber, 1996). Overall though, most perceptions of culture touch upon similar facets.
Lytle et al. (1995, p. 170) identify three principle ideas that underlie most definitions and conceptualizations of culture: (1) culture is defined by patterns; (2) culture is manifested symbolically in a variety of indicators; and (3) culture is shared among two or more people. It is “the integrated, complex set of interrelated and potentially interactive patterns that is characteristic of a group of people” (Lytle et al., 1995).
This shared set of patterns has been referred to as the collective programming of the mind by Hofstede (2001). His distinction between cultures is based on the fact groups or categories of people differ from each other in their respective mental programs. As Schwartz (1997, p. 69-70) argues, mental programming is not the sole determinant of human behaviour since there is always the possibility of individuals to react in new and unexpected ways, but it can facilitate the making of predictions concerning behaviour. Since countries are in fact no more than groups of people with a similar nationality, a collective programming of the mind can be shared by people within a country.
4.2. National Culture
National boundaries do not necessarily correspond with division of cultural groups (Schwartz, 1999), but there is often a strong tendency for the integration of culture in nations that have existed for some time (Hofstede, 1991, in Schwartz, 2001; Dahl, 2004). Such nations are often found to have forces leading towards assimilation of members of a society into a dominant culture, such as education, political systems, and media.
4.3. Cultural Dimensions of Values
With the concept of national culture deliberated, dimensions of national culture are but a step away. An important assumption was made in the search for cultural dimensions: “cultural dimensions of values reflect the basic issues or problems that societies must confront in order to regulate human activity” (Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Schwartz, 1994, in Schwartz, 1997).
Following this assumption, a number of researchers have elaborated on the subject of cultural dimensions, each with their own approach and respective results: Hofstede, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, and Schwartz. There is no commonly acknowledged ‘correct’ concept of culture or cultural dimensions (Dahl, 2004: p. 19), but each may be more appropriate than the others depending on the embarked study and circumstances.
Considering the current framework, there are a number of advantages to Hofstede’s work that make it the most suitable outline of how culture can be measured through a set of dimensions. First of all, Hofstede managed to reduce the complexities of culture and its interactions into a narrow set of relatively easily understood cultural dimensions. It captures culture in a broad sense while sticking to a comprehensible model. Furthermore, Hofstede’s work carries a practical flavour, in that underlying values are derived from a series of questions about more outer layers of the ‘culture onion,’ such as behaviour, which is an important factor in interpersonal contact. Lastly, as Dahl (2004) averred, Hofstede’s work is based on a questionnaire originally designed to evaluate work values, and is mostly focused towards that end. This implies that it is especially relevant for the current research, which lies directly within the working climate. As Hofstede states: “the IBM survey took place in a work context, and the values it reflects are therefore all more or less work related” (Hofstede, 2001: p.92).
4.4. Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Examined
In “Culture’s Consequences,” his work on values, behaviours, institutions, and organisations across nations, Hofstede catches the main differences between national cultures by ranking each separate culture along a set of bipolar dimensions: (1) power distance; (2) uncertainty avoidance; (3) individualism and collectivism; (4) masculinity and femininity; and (5) long-term orientation (also referred to as Confucian dynamism). Later on, in chapter 5, the consequences of differences in national culture will be examined on the basis of these dimensions. Practical implications will be developed and different cultural values compared. In the subsequent sections (4.4.1 up until 4.4.5), the dimensions are further explained, founded on Hofstede’s work Culture’s Consequences (2001).
4.4.1. Power Distance
The first of Hofstede’s dimensions of national cultures, power distance, is concerned with human inequality. By nature, human beings show a sense of dominance, and human pecking orders are a universal phenomenon (Hofstede, 2001). The differences between cultures lie in the fact that people from different cultures have dissimilar perspectives concerning these concepts, where in some societies dominance and inequality are accepted and considered ‘a part of life’ while in others they are regarded as problems that need to be confronted.
Relations between members of an organisation on different rungs of the hierarchical ladder are characterised by differences in power, those positioned higher having been granted the ability to tells those below them what to do. It is important to note that the boss-subordinate relationship rests on the values and beliefs of both the leader and the subordinate, since leaders cannot lead subordinates that do not allow themselves to be led. As Hofstede states: “leadership can exist only as a complement to subordinateship” (2001: p.82). These views and beliefs are what constitute Hofstede’s concept of power distance.
Power distance is a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between two individuals as observed by the less powerful of the two, and has its roots in the works of Mauk Mulder, who defines power as “the potential to determine or direct the behaviour of another person or other persons more so than the other way round” and power distance as “the degree of inequality in power between a less powerful individual and a more powerful individual, in which both belong to the same social system” (Mulder, 1997: in Hofstede, 2001). Culture is what determines the level of power distance that is accepted within societies. Following Hofstede, I will use the definition of power distance as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”.
4.4.2. Uncertainty Avoidance
Undesirable feelings towards this uncertainty have led to the development of certain “defence mechanisms,” where people have devised ways to help them cope with gnawing doubt and uncertainties. Hofstede broadly identified three ways of dealing with the ambiguity of what is still to come: (1) technology; (2) law; and (3) religion. Technology pertains to human artefacts (e.g., dikes against the threat of floods), law includes formal and informal rules that guide social behaviour (e.g., laws protecting against aggressive behaviour of others), while religion entails the revealed knowledge of the unknown (e.g., belief in life after death). In a business environment, the current interest, the law aspect of defence is most prominent.
Different approaches in uncertainty avoidance exist in different societies, and are the result of a surfeit of factors that, over time, have influenced the members of a society. As Hofstede appositely puts it: “ways of coping with uncertainty belong to the cultural heritage of societies, and they are transferred and reinforced through the basic institutions such as the family, the school, and the state. They are reflected in collectively held values of the members of a particular society. Their roots are nonrational, and they may lead to collective behaviour in one society that may seem aberrant and incomprehensible to members of other societies” (Hofstede, 2001: p.146).
On the national cultural level, uncertainty avoidance refers to the general attitude among the members of a society towards the ambiguity that the future instigates. It concerns the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertain of unknown situations, and is expressed in a wide-ranging need for formality, predictability and clear rules.
4.4.3. Individualism and Collectivism
An important factor that causes the variance is the way in which people organise themselves in their daily lives. Depending on the norm of a society, people may live in nuclear families, extended families or clans (including grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins), or tribes. The prevailing variety of family organisation can be traced back to ancient times; very traditional hunting-gathering tribes tend to live in nuclear families while more convoluted societies tend to be organised in extended families, clans, and tribes.
A second significant factor in assessing a society’s degree of individualism (collectivism) is self-concept, specifically how someone considers himself in relation to others. Some may be able to clearly detach themselves from societal grouping and consider themselves a unique individual; others may regard themselves foremost as a member of a group and will hence be reluctant to break things down to individual level. The focus may be on personal characteristics (gender, occupation, looks) or on someone role within a group (family ties, work teams, religious beliefs).
In short, the difference between individualism and collectivism can be described as follows: In individualistic societies there are few ties beyond the nuclear family, whereas in collectivist societies people belong to strong, cohesive in-groups (e.g., at work). In individualist societies, relationships with others are not obvious and prearranged but voluntary and carefully cultivated. Conversely, collectivist societies show no need for special friendships, as it is superseded by group membership.
4.4.4. Masculinity and Femininity
Traditionally, men have been more concerned with financial affairs and other achievements, whereas women have been more concerned with taking care of people in general and children in particular. Qualities often associated with males include assertiveness, toughness, and focus on material success, whereas ‘softer’ qualities such as modesty, tenderness, and concern for the quality of life tend to be linked to females. Societies labelled masculine are those in which these differences between genders are rigid and distinct. Femininity refers to societies in which the separation between men and women is less clear-cut, and social gender roles tend to overlap, implying that the all of the abovementioned qualities can pertain both to men and women.
4.4.5. Long- versus Short-Term Orientation
Where Hofstede initially identified only four dimensions, he later added a fifth dimension, long- versus short-term orientation, after taking into account the answers to the Chinese Value Survey (CVS), an instrument devised by Michael Bond from values suggested by Chinese students around 1985. He argued that this fifth dimension had not arisen from the original research since the questionnaire that was used essentially reflected the western mindset of its designers.
Where most of the results of the CVS corresponded with the findings of the IBM studies, there was one dimension that was identified from the CVS factors that was absent from Hofstede’s earlier findings. Bond had named it Confucian Dynamism, taken from its connection to the teachings of Confucius (Kong Ze) and from the fact that it features both future-oriented items as well as past- and present-oriented items. It pertains, as Hofstede (2001) states, “to a long-term versus a short-term orientation in life”, distinguishing those whose focus is on the current situation from those who look farther ahead.
5. The Relationship between Managers
The main interest of this paper is the working relationship between managers of the outsourcer and of the outside supplier (represented by arrow ‘Y’ in diagram B of exhibit 3.2.). In case of the outsourcer, managers are considered those in the higher echelons of the outsourcing company, overseeing the outsourcing agreement and monitoring the performance of the outside supplier. For the outside supplier, managers consist of those employees working in the middle line and strategic apex of the project (level 2 and 1 of exhibit 3.1 respectively), along with a limited number of employees on team level which actively support their superiors in their contact with the outsourcer and customers and vendors. It is on their level that the most intensive communication takes place, and where cultural differences are most likely to affect the proceedings and outcomes. Differences in national cultural background can have an effect on various aspects of the working relationship between both managers, as they result in differing values, beliefs, and standpoints; every time they meet, write each other e-mails, or have conversations on the phone, interaction is influenced by culture. At the end of this chapter, the following subquestion will have been answered: “Which aspects of the interaction between managers in a cross-border partnership are most likely to be the subject of friction?” and “Which differences in the cultural background of managers influence which aspects of their relationship, and how?”
Two outsourcing supply centres are examined, one in Prague, Czech Republic, the other in Bratislava, Slovakia. Together they offer outsourcing services to a multitude of clients from three continents, so that the contact described above takes place between Czechs and Slovaks on the one hand, and their foreign counterparts on the other. From Bratislava, client organisations from three countries are being provided outsourcing solutions: the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands. The service centre in Prague serves a larger amount of clients from Western Europe and the United States.
Table 5.1 – National Cultures Involved
Czech Republic The Netherlands Turkey Slovakia South Africa
Great Britain South Africa United States Great Britain Denmark
France Finland Ivory Coast France
Spain Austria Ireland Spain
Germany Belgium Germany
Italy Portugal Italy
5.1. Hofstede’s Scores
Tying into Hofstede’s (2001) work on cultural dimensions and the scores he computed for the nations included in his studies, and having defined cultural differences as divergence between nations’ scores, a clash between two managers’ cultural backgrounds can effectively be considered a clash of different scores on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Since the scores on cultural dimensions represents a ‘central tendency’ for societies (nations) as a whole, comparison will be made merely between groups of managers. Only by taking a number of people from one society (representing a single national culture) can the use of Hofstede’s dimensions be justified, since central tendencies cannot be used to predict individual characteristics or behaviour. Individual patterns will deviate from the mean, and these deviations need to be ‘averaged out’ in order to validate the utilisation of cultural dimensions.
Differences in conviction and work methods will be most evident when two managers hail from societies with strongly contrasting values and friction arises when parties disagree on what should be done and how it should be done. In general, greater divergence between managers increases the likelihood of disagreement since it is more likely for people with greatly contrasting values to hold opposing views and opinions. Hence, it is cases in which large differences in dimensional scores between nations exist that the relationship between managers becomes interesting. Table 5.2 show the scores of the nations involved in the research. Using the table, national value scores of the outside supplier’s employees (Czech Republic and Slovakia) can be contrasted with those of outsourcers’ employees.
Table 5.2 – National Scores on Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions
46 16 74 23 18 Denmark 16 46 20 54 77 Ivory Coast (*) 38 110 52 51 104 Slovakia 30 31 27 104 63 Portugal 38 54 75 94 65 Belgium N/A 63 65 49 49 South Africa 31 79 55 70 11 Austria N/A 45 37 85 66 Turkey 29 62 91 46 40 United States 43 68 70 35 28 Ireland 41 26 63 59 33 Finland 44 14 80 53 38 The Netherlands 34 70 76 75 50 Italy 31 66 67 65 35 Germany 19 42 51 86 57 Spain 39 43 71 86 68 France 25 66 89 35 35 Great Britain 13 57 58 74 57 Czech Republic
LTO
MAS
IDV
UAI
PDI
46 16 74 23 18 Denmark 16 46 20 54 77 Ivory Coast (*) 38 110 52 51 104 Slovakia 30 31 27 104 63 Portugal 38 54 75 94 65 Belgium N/A 63 65 49 49 South Africa 31 79 55 70 11 Austria N/A 45 37 85 66 Turkey 29 62 91 46 40 United States 43 68 70 35 28 Ireland 41 26 63 59 33 Finland 44 14 80 53 38 The Netherlands 34 70 76 75 50 Italy 31 66 67 65 35 Germany 19 42 51 86 57 Spain 39 43 71 86 68 France 25 66 89 35 35 Great Britain 13 57 58 74 57 Czech RepublicLTO
MAS
IDV
UAI
PDI
In Culture’s Consequences, Hofstede describes key differences between societies that score high on his cultural dimensions and those that score low (i.e., cultural extremes). Taking these key differences as a starting point, I have identified a number of areas where friction between managers is likely to arise as a result of cultural dissimilarity. Each of these is tied to one of the dimensions of national culture since they show how values differ between nations. Differences in power distance will lead to different degrees of consultation of subordinates (i.e., leadership style); differences in uncertainty avoidance will affect the amount of rules and regulations and openness to change; differences in individualism influences the nature of the working relationship; and masculinity affects expectations of what makes a good manager and an individual’s devotion to work. In-depth analysis of these matters and resulting hypotheses will follow in section 5.3 below.
5.2. Relevant Countries
Once potential problem areas have been identified, it is important to examine the national scores (table 5.2) to find out where the most obvious differences should be found according to Hofstede’s dimension scores. Since these position the nations relative to one another (i.e., absolute scores are meaningless), it would make sense to take relative differences between the outside supplier nations and the outsourcer nations. However, since taking a relative difference approach leads to a bias for lower scores (the difference between a score of 4 and 5 is the same as that between 94 and 95 in absolute terms but considerably larger in relative terms), a different approach is required. As such I opt that differences are significant when they amount to 20 percent or more of the total range for a dimension. The total range is computed by subtracting the lowest national score for a dimension from the highest – where these scores are taken from Hofstede’s 2001 edition of Culture’s Consequences (p.500-502). When a score difference exceeds 20 percent of the total range, it is included in the consideration.
5.2.1. Power Distance
Considering the condition for inclusion that was described above, quite a number of combinations of national scores meet the requirements for significant difference in power distance. As can be seen in table 5.3, seven country PDI scores (Great Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Ivory Coast, and Ireland) differ significantly from the Czech Republic, the differences exceeding 20 percent of the total range (a score distance of over 20). Of these, Ivory Coast is the only country that scores higher as opposed to lower. A similar situation exists for Slovakia, which shows seven countries with significantly different scores (Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, South Africa, and Denmark). In this case all these countries score lower on Power Distance.
Table 5.3 – Significant Differences in Power Distance
-58.1 -54 50 Italy -49.5 -46 11 Austria -74.2 -69 35 Germany -25.8 -24 33 Finland -50.5 -47 57 Spain -20.4 -19 38 The Netherlands -59.1 -55 49 South Africa 21.5 20 77 Ivory Coast -92.5 -86 18 Denmark -31.2 -29 28 Ireland -38.7 -36 68 France -23.7 -22 35 Germany -74.2 -69 35 Great Britain -23.7 -22 35 Great Britain N/A N/A 104 Slovakia N/A N/A 57 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference PDI Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference PDI Country -58.1 -54 50 Italy -49.5 -46 11 Austria -74.2 -69 35 Germany -25.8 -24 33 Finland -50.5 -47 57 Spain -20.4 -19 38 The Netherlands -59.1 -55 49 South Africa 21.5 20 77 Ivory Coast -92.5 -86 18 Denmark -31.2 -29 28 Ireland -38.7 -36 68 France -23.7 -22 35 Germany -74.2 -69 35 Great Britain -23.7 -22 35 Great Britain N/A N/A 104 Slovakia N/A N/A 57 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference PDI Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference PDI Country
* Score distance is computed through dividing the absolute difference by the total PDI range (Malaysia’s 104 minus Austria’s 11 = 93) and multiplying by 100 percent
5.2.2. Uncertainty Avoidance
Table 5.4 – Significant Differences in Uncertainty Avoidance -26.9 -28 46 United States 23.1 24 75 Italy -24.0 -25 49 South Africa 33.7 35 86 France -37.5 -39 35 Great Britain -26.9 -28 23 Denmark 28.8 30 104 Portugal -37.5 -39 35 Ireland 33.7 35 86 Spain -20.2 -21 53 The Netherlands N/A N/A 51 Slovakia N/A N/A 74 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference UAI Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference UAI Country -26.9 -28 46 United States 23.1 24 75 Italy -24.0 -25 49 South Africa 33.7 35 86 France -37.5 -39 35 Great Britain -26.9 -28 23 Denmark 28.8 30 104 Portugal -37.5 -39 35 Ireland 33.7 35 86 Spain -20.2 -21 53 The Netherlands N/A N/A 51 Slovakia N/A N/A 74 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference UAI Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference UAI Country
* Score distance is computed through dividing the absolute difference by the total UAI range (Greece’s 112 minus Singapore’s 8 = 104) and multiplying by 100 percent
5.2.3. Individualism vs. Collectivism
A number of combinations of countries can be made when considering the score differences on Hofstede’s Individualism dimension (see table 5.5.). For the Czech Republic, the score distance from Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Turkey, the United States, and Ivory Coast is above the required 20 percent. Three countries (Portugal, Turkey, and Ivory Coast) have lower scores; the others score higher than the Czech Republic. For Slovakia, its IDV score is significantly lower than that of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Denmark – score distances being between 22.4 and 43.5.
Table 5.5 – Significant Differences in Individualism
-36.5 -31 27 Portugal 25.9 22 74 Denmark 20.0 17 75 Belgium 28.2 24 76 Italy 25.9 22 80 The Netherlands -24.7 -21 37 Turkey 38.9 33 91 United States 22.4 19 71 France 21.2 18 76 Italy -44.7 -38 20 Ivory Coast 43.5 37 89 Great Britain 35.5 31 89 Great Britain N/A N/A 52 Slovakia N/A N/A 58 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference IDV Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference IDV Country -36.5 -31 27 Portugal 25.9 22 74 Denmark 20.0 17 75 Belgium 28.2 24 76 Italy 25.9 22 80 The Netherlands -24.7 -21 37 Turkey 38.9 33 91 United States 22.4 19 71 France 21.2 18 76 Italy -44.7 -38 20 Ivory Coast 43.5 37 89 Great Britain 35.5 31 89 Great Britain N/A N/A 52 Slovakia N/A N/A 58 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference IDV Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference IDV Country
5.2.4. Masculinity vs. Femininity
The most apparent differences in masculinity are found for Slovakia, which of all countries considered in Culture’s Consequences has the highest MAS score (110). Large differences in comparison to Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, South Africa, and Denmark are the result (all of these have lower MAS scores). For the Czech Republic – with a considerably lower score on masculinity – significant difference is found when comparing it to the Netherlands, Finland, Austria, and Portugal. Here only Austria scores higher, the other countries score lower (see table 5.6.).
Table 5.6 – Significant Differences in Masculinity
-38.1 -40 70 Italy -64.8 -68 42 Spain 21.0 22 79 Austria -41.2 -44 66 Germany -24.8 -26 31 Portugal -44.8 -47 63 South Africa -63.8 -67 43 France -29.5 -31 26 Finland -89.5 -94 16 Denmark -41.9 -44 66 Great Britain -41.0 -43 14 The Netherlands N/A N/A 110 Slovakia N/A N/A 57 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference MAS Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference MAS Country -38.1 -40 70 Italy -64.8 -68 42 Spain 21.0 22 79 Austria -41.2 -44 66 Germany -24.8 -26 31 Portugal -44.8 -47 63 South Africa -63.8 -67 43 France -29.5 -31 26 Finland -89.5 -94 16 Denmark -41.9 -44 66 Great Britain -41.0 -43 14 The Netherlands N/A N/A 110 Slovakia N/A N/A 57 Czech Republic Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference MAS Country Score Distance (*) Absolute Difference MAS Country
* Score distance is computed through dividing the absolute difference by the total MAS range (Slovakia’s 110 minus Sweden’s 5 = 105) and multiplying by 100 percent
5.3. Hypotheses
5.3.1. Leadership Style (PDI)
In the outsourcing situation, this refers to the relationship between a manager and his subordinates, shown by arrows ‘Q’ and ‘R’ in exhibit 5.1. Differences in scores on PDI do not have a direct effect on the relationship between managers (arrow ‘P’) since they occupy the same hierarchical level. Instead, it has an indirect effect through the way in which both managers regard the other’s work methods and leadership style (the type of relationship that comprises ‘Q’ and ‘R’).
Exhibit 5.1 – The Power Distance Situation
Outsourcer Manager Supplier Subordinates Outsourcer Subordinates Supplier Manager Q R P
Nations that score high on PDI value authoritative leadership and centralised decision making. Conversely, nations that score low on PDI value consultative leadership and decentralised decision making. Taking the high-PDI perspective, managers may expect their counterparts to be authoritative and autonomous. As a result, managers from low-PDI nations that consult their employees and involve them in decision making may be regarded as indecisive. Where low-PDI managers are used to confer with employees, this may be deemed unnecessary by their high-PDI counterparts who feel that manager should be able to make decisions by themselves.
5.3.2. Rules and Regulations (UAI)
Different managers have different views on the role of rules and regulations in management systems. Rules can be strictly adhered to, or “bent” when they appear to be too rigid and flexibility seems beneficial. The way in which rules are regarded (rigid vs. flexible) and the amount of rules and regulations in place is affected by uncertainty avoidance. Whether people are comfortable with certain degrees of ambiguity greatly influences the degree of formalisation in an organisation; work procedures can be structured and standardised, or unstructured and open for improvisation.
Managers from nations with a low score on uncertainty avoidance (UAI) tolerate a degree of ambiguity in structures and procedures. Those with high uncertainty avoidance attempt to abolish ambiguity and hence have a highly formalised conception of management. In their case, rules and regulations have been devised to deal with any kind insecurity that is associated with their company’s daily operations. Alternatively, low-UAI managers will have fewer rules and regulations since they allow for a certain degree of ambiguity. As Hofstede affirms: “the stronger a culture’s tendency to avoid uncertainty, the greater its need for rules” (Hofstede, 2001: p.147).
H2: The high-UAI managers will believe that low-UAI managers should use increased standardisation and formalisation in their work methods
5.3.3. Openness to Change
From the high-UAI perspective, new approaches may be regarded as creating unnecessary insecurity and may be deemed superfluous since conventional methods already exist. Societies with high uncertainty avoidance are more conservative and more resistant to change than those with low uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001: p.153).
H3: The high-UAI managers will regard the low UAI-managers as creating insecurity by using novel solutions and straying from conventional means
5.3.4. Work Relationships and Personal Relationships
There lies a difference in the way business is conducted between individualistic societies and collectivistic (the opposite of individualistic) societies, originating from the way members of a society regard those outside their society. The degree to which people divide others into groups –distinguishing between those who are part of their group and those who do not – affects how potential business partners approach each other. In the current case, the members of the outsourcing firm may hold different beliefs than do those in the outside supplier. Individualism affects the extent to which relationships are formed between individual people or between companies (groups of people).
Collectivist societies are characterised by particularism, which implies that there is a distinction between ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ and that one trusts only those that are “one of us” (Hofstede, 2001: p.238). In collectivist nations, a manager will want to establish a relationship of trust before doing business with anyone. Since in individualist societies everyone is treated alike (universalism), the individualist manager will not feel this need and will want to come straight to business. Consequently, while establishing a working relationship, the individualist manager will believe the collectivist is evading the matters at hand, whereas the collectivist manager, wishing to build up a steady relationship, will regard the individualist as impatient and ‘introvert’.
With a steady personal relationship in place, or being established, a change of agents may result in irritation. For the collectivist manager, the personal relationship is paramount and a (temporary) substitute contact may be met with reluctance or even suspicion. In case of a change in personnel, the establishing of trust starts anew with the new contact. If two managers have learnt to work with each other and have found ways to cooperate, the replacement of one agent may be considered more troublesome depending on the degree of individualism. For the high-IDV manager, the relationship between the companies has not been affected and work methods are likely to remain unchanged; for the low-IDV manager, a new relationship needs to be established. Essentially, the change-over is a waste of time and resources.
H5: The low-IDV managers will regard the replacement of a contact detrimental to an existing working relationship
5.3.5. Manager Competencies
Different cultures hold different views on how managers should make decisions and what constitutes a competent manager. What is expected of a manager is a result of the values that prevail in a society; while qualities can be regarded a strength in one society; they can be seen as a weakness in others. Hofstede (2001) distinguishes between the ways managers are regarded in nations with disparate scores on the masculinity dimension (MAS). In masculine societies, managers should be assertive, decisive, and “aggressive,” whereas in feminine societies the manager is less visible, intuitive, and seeking consensus (Hofstede, 2001: p.313). In the eyes of a manager from a high-MAS culture, the low-MAS manager may be perceived as ‘soft,’ which is a potential cause of disagreement in their working relationship. From a masculine perspective, the ‘feminine manager’ would lack the skills required for a manager to perform, and may appear incompetent.
5.3.6. Role of Work in Life
One apparent difference between cultures is the way in which the relationship between work and life outside work is regarded – for some, work is more important than for others. Following Hofstede’s work, a separation can be made along the masculinity/femininity dimension: for masculine cultures (scoring high on MAS) the credo is “living in order to work,” whereas in feminine cultures people “work in order to live” (Hofstede, 2001: p.312). Looking at the relationship between a manager from a masculine society and one from a mostly feminine society, the former may interpret the latter’s attitude as a “lack of commitment.” The dissimilar role of work in each manager’s culture may result in different amounts of time each devotes to the working relationship. One may work evenings and weekends and regard the other as ‘slacking’ when failing to act likewise.
H7: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack commitment to the working relationship
5.4. Moderating Variable
6. Methodology
6.1. Data Collection
In order to test the predictions made through the hypotheses in the preceding chapter, a questionnaire has been developed, which has been distributed personally to Czech and Slovak employees in the outside supplier’s offices in Prague and Bratislava. From April 20th until 23rd of 2007, a total of 130 questionnaires was handed out in the SSC in Prague, and another 20 questionnaires in Bratislava.
The development of the questionnaire started by scrutinising the established hypotheses and translating the expectations into verifiable and measurable propositions with the help of the theories presented Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences. The information in hypotheses was abstract and needed to be converted into specific elements of manager interaction. Subsequently, these elements needed to be linked to behaviour in order to be measured. In the following, each of the hypotheses will be dealt with in turn. An overview of the resulting statements is provided later on in this chapter (table 6.1.), showing several items for each hypothesis and where the statement can be found in the eventual questionnaire (red numbers) in appendix A at the end of this article.
6.1.1 Power Distance
H1: The high-PDI managers will believe the low-PDI managers need to show more authority
Essentially, this hypothesis concerned the style of decision making favoured by a manager. On one extreme, the manager would simply hand out tasks, telling employees what to do without asking for opinions (centralised decision making). On the other side there is the manager who considers him- or herself as part of a team and hence takes decisions after consulting subordinates. Four items concerning decision making were distinguished when developing the questionnaire, all involving the relationship between a manager and his or her subordinates. These are labelled PD1-4 in the questionnaire blue print, table 6.1 at the end of this chapter.
6.1.2. Uncertainty Avoidance
H2: The high-UAI managers will believe that low-UAI managers should use increased standardisation and formalisation in their work methods
One way in which uncertainty avoidance influences the relationship between managers is through different beliefs concerning standardisation. To some, it is an ideal measure to counter uncertainty of outcomes, where others believe it impedes flexibility and creativity. In a related matter, the degree of uncertainty avoidance also affects the rigidity of rules. To some, rules are not to be broken no matter the circumstances; others may be more lax and believe rules should be seen as guidelines rather than strict indicators of what can and cannot be done. Three elements were included in the questionnaire, relating to the rigidity of rules and the extent to which work methods were standardised (items UA1-3 in table 6.1). Additionally, three items relating to formalisation were included, addressing the different aspects of manager interaction and the extent to which formalities are valued (items UA4-6 in table 6.1).
A second means through which uncertainty avoidance affects the working relationship between managers is by determining a manager’s attitude towards novelty. Here, a distinction can be made between those believing that continuing improvement must be made in order to remain efficient, and that innovation may lead to new, more effective methods of work, and those who believe that if something has proven to be successful, it should not be tinkered with. Three items (UA7-9 in table 6.1) were identified in the development of the questionnaire, all of which concerned the way existing work methods were regarded and whether there was room for innovation.
6.1.3. Individualism vs. Collectivism
H4: The low-IDV managers will believe the high-IDV managers do not spend enough time to get to know one another in a business relationship
A major difference between members of individualistic and collectivistic societies is that the former is the way in which they regard other people. For individualistic societies, all people are treated the same (universalism); whereas in collectivistic societies someone is trusted only if that person is “one of us”. Consequently, a manager from a collectivistic society will want to get to know his fellow manager before doing business, while the manager from the individualistic society will not feel this need. The items that were included in the questionnaire (ID1-3 in table 6.1) related to this difference, all dealing with the fine line between work and personal life (discussed in section 5.4.1.).
H5: The low-IDV managers will regard the replacement of a contact detrimental to an existing working relationship
The difference in perspective influences the way in which business is done, and whether it is common for someone to deal with colleagues of his or her regular contact in case the latter is unavailable. Items ID4-6 in table 6.1 deal with these issues.
6.1.4. Masculinity vs. Femininity
H6: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack what it takes to be a good manager
People from different societies hold different ideas of what constitutes a competent manager. Considering the dichotomy between masculine and feminine societies, expectations of what makes a good manager range from a strong, assertive, and decisive individual to someone who is well endowed in ‘soft’ skills, such as being a good listener, acting as a mediator in conflict situations, and so forth. In terms of the items included in the questionnaire, these also reflect the abovementioned distinction: the use of reason versus intuition, defending one’s point of view, and whether compromises are made when differences of opinion arise (MS1-3 in table 6.1).
H7: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack commitment to the working relationship
Table 6.1 – Questionnaire Blue Print
Power Distance
H1: The high-PDI managers will believe the low-PDI managers need to show more authority
Measure: Authoritative Leadership
PD1 (15) Take decisions on the spot
PD2 (24) Delegates work to subordinates
PD3 (13) Need to convince subordinates of decisions
PD4 (6) Act as a team player towards subordinates
Uncertainty Avoidance
H2: The high-UAI managers will believe that low-UAI managers should use increased structure and standardisation and formalisation in their work methods
Measure: Belief in standardisation
UA1 (14) Propose to work according to standard procedures
UA2 (21) Work a way around the rules
UA3 (26) Break rules when it is in the interest of the project
Measure: Use of formalisation
UA4 (1) Create a formal atmosphere during meetings
UA5 (28) Dress formally during meetings
UA6 (22) Use formal language in e-mails and letters
H3: The high-UAI managers will regard the low UAI-managers as creating insecurity by using novel solutions and straying from conventional means
Measure: Openness to change
UA7 (17) Encourage innovation among subordinates
UA8 (25) Propose to change successful work methods
UA9 (5) Investigate whether current work methods can be improved
Individualism
H4: The low-IDV managers will believe the high-IDV managers are focused on work too much
Measure: Valuing a personal relationship
ID1 (2) Show an interest in the other’s personal life
ID2 (10) Talk about non-work matters on the phone
H5: The low-IDV managers will regard the replacement of a contact detrimental to an existing working relationship
Measure: Willingness to deal with a replacement
ID4 (12) Send an e-mail when the other is unavailable by phone rather than talk to the other’s co-worker
ID5 (16) Deal with his/her colleagues in case the other is on a short holiday
ID6 (27) Deal with colleagues in case the other is unavailable
Masculinity
H6: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack what it takes to be a good manager
Measure: Masculine behaviour
MS1 (8) Defend initial point of view in negotiation
MS2 (19) Make proposals that are based on reasoning and good arguments
MS3 (4) Ask for the other’s opinion when facing a difficult decision
MS4 (11) Propose to work together when facing a problem situation
H7: The high-MAS managers will believe that the low-MAS managers lack commitment to the working relationship
Measure: “Live to work”
MS5 (20) Discuss business outside office hours
MS6 (23) Feel willing to discuss work matters during a lunch break
MS7 (9) Make oneself available for work during weekends
Filler Items
FL1 (3) Travel to the other’s location
