Intercultural Management, a Swedish Example
Introduction :
Geert Hofstede defines culture as the particular feature of the nations. Thus the nationality is likely to set up the basic values and believes of every one's mind. A generally accepted definition is that offered by Kroeber and Kluckholm :
"Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as a products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of future action." In this last perspective one can assess that culture, defined in accordance to Hofstede's view, has dramatic effects on the way firm are organized. Barnard and Selznick argue that the first interest in the impact of nationality on the firm's organization appeared after the great success of the Japanese products, after the Second World War, as their cultural basis were totally different from the occidental ones, which were supposed to be the most, if not the only, effective ones.
In the 1950s and 60s, the dominant belief, at least in Europe and in the USA, was that management was universal, and do not depend on national environments. During the 1970s, the belief in the unavoidable convergence of management practices waned. It slowly became clear that national and even regional cultures do matter for management. Nowadays, these differences are still increasing and their impact is even deeper on the way firms are managed.
Therefore two main points have to be exposed, first why and how the national cultural values and believes have an impact on the private management? Second, is the national belonging a major and determinant factor to explain the organizational culture of the private companies?
In a first part we will
Geert Hofstede defines culture as the particular feature of the nations. Thus the nationality is likely to set up the basic values and believes of every one's mind. A generally accepted definition is that offered by Kroeber and Kluckholm :
"Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as a products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of future action." In this last perspective one can assess that culture, defined in accordance to Hofstede's view, has dramatic effects on the way firm are organized. Barnard and Selznick argue that the first interest in the impact of nationality on the firm's organization appeared after the great success of the Japanese products, after the Second World War, as their cultural basis were totally different from the occidental ones, which were supposed to be the most, if not the only, effective ones.
In the 1950s and 60s, the dominant belief, at least in Europe and in the USA, was that management was universal, and do not depend on national environments. During the 1970s, the belief in the unavoidable convergence of management practices waned. It slowly became clear that national and even regional cultures do matter for management. Nowadays, these differences are still increasing and their impact is even deeper on the way firms are managed.
Therefore two main points have to be exposed, first why and how the national cultural values and believes have an impact on the private management? Second, is the national belonging a major and determinant factor to explain the organizational culture of the private companies?
In a first part we will