What is the difference between a National Culture and an Organizational Culture?

Based on the research of Dr. Geert Hofstede, there are differences between national and organizational cultures.  For global companies, it is important to understand both in order to impact organizational performance.[1]

Morgan offers his insights from a sociologist perspective.  He aptly describes organizations as cultures to the extent to which he illustrates that the history of the collective group in a country affects how they run their organizations.  He conveys this by providing comparisons between the United States (U.S.) organizational culture of individualism to that of the Japan’s organizational culture of collectivism and depending on each nation’s economic framework it is built on their organizational behaviour contributes favourably to the success and viability of the organizations in that environment.

Geert Hofstede, from an anthropologist perspective describes a national culture by offering insights into four dimensions that influence cultural humanity:

1.       Power Distance – Coping with discrimination/inequity

2.       Uncertainty avoidance – Coping with ambiguity

3.       Individualism – Association  of the individual with the principal group

4.       Masculinity – The emotional repercussions of being born either as a male or female.

Based on a survey conducted 1990 – 2002 by IBM with 116,000 employees in 50 countries different countries where placed in different categories.  A fifth dimension called Long versus Short-term Orientation, was added by Michael Bond when he conducted a research among students in 23 countries.  The study identified how long-term orientated societies fostered pragmatic virtues, e.g., saving, persistence and adaptation to changing environments versus short-term orientated societies that focused on patriotism, respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations and keep up appearances.  A sixth dimension called Indulgence versus Restraint, was added based on Minkov’s World Values Survey data done on 93 countries.  The study looked at how society allowed relatively free gratification related to enjoying life and having fun versus a society that suppresses gratification of needs by means of strict social norms.

When one looks at the sociologist and the anthropologists varying degrees of the way they look at culture it appears that they only have one common thread which runs through both models – Individualism/Collectivism.  Both agree to the degree to which individuals are assimilated to their groups both at a national level and organizational level.  Hofstede study conveyed this by illustrating that Anglo-european/American countries are dominated by individualistic values, versus Asian and Latin-European countries are governed by collectivism.   Hoefstede continues to say, “ My research has shown that organizational cultures differ mainly at the levels of symbols, heroes and rituals, together labelled 'practices'; national cultures differ mostly at the deeper level, the level of values.”[2]

The important question to ask is, is there a difference in national culture and organizational culture? Hofstede’s assessment is that the national culture is associated with our traditional values, for example, ethical versus unethical, moral versus immorality.  As a result, national cultural traditional values are taught through the individual’s surrounding environment at an early stage.  Therefore, become deeply ingrained and change gradually over the period. 

Morgan’s assessment of Organizational culture, in comparison, looks at the fundamentally rooted organizational practices learned during employment, which also to an extent can change over a length of time.  It is important to understand these differences in today’s world because of increasing trend in globalization.  This means companies such as Barclays, JP Morgan, GoldmanSachs to name a few who have branch/satellite firms in each continent can no longer underestimate the impact of an employee’s personal values in the foreign country and its impact on how they perceive the organizational culture of that entity versus that organization’s national culture – its origin.  For example, working for JP Morgan South Africa is different to working in JP Morgan U.S.  Whilst JP Morgan an originally U.S. based company has specific national culture and organizational culture that are specific to the U.S. for business to operate successfully in South Africa, JP Morgan SA will have to adopt some characteristics of local employee’s national culture and combine it with the U.S. organizational culture that exists in the U.S. based firms.  However, whilst in some cases local employee’s may be persuaded to adopt U.S. national culture, the challenge arises when 1) local employees ratio to foreign employees is higher 2) local employee’s national culture values are deeply rooted 3) U.S. organizational culture goes against the deeply held national cultural values of the local employees.  What is acceptable in a national context is not acceptable in another.  It is evident that organizational culture eventually does not dominate over national culture.  This in essence is what Morgan refers to as subculture.

Overview Table comparing Hofstede and Morgan’s metaphor of Brains

Hofstede – National Culture	Organizational Framework	Morgan’s metaphor of Brains
Power Distance	Hierarchical/Beaurecratic Systems in place
Uncertainty avoidance	Access to company information & company resources
Individualism	Open plan office versus demarcated offices/single unit offices
Masculinity	Glass-ceiling Effect

Table above looks at how Hofstede view of national culture is simulated into an Organizational culture as we see it today.

How does power-distance relate to the brain metaphor?  Power distance is the degree to which members of a culture accept and expect that power in society is unequally distributed (Hofstede, 1980).[3]  This contrast Morgan’s brain metaphor in the sense that the brain functionality are not decentralized into hierarchical structure.  Each nerve cell of the brain share the same level of exercising control in how it process and stores the information in the brain.  In addition, power-distance is formed to create a center or point of control.  In contrast, ‘the brain seems to store and process data in many parts simultaneously.  Pattern and order emerge from the process; it is not imposed.’[4] This helps us understand that unlike national culture, organizational culture hierarchical structure is a natural formation determined by the individual roles.  This is illustrated in the results, of “split brain” research…there is undoubtedly a high-degree of specialization on the part of each hemisphere (left and right), but both are always involved in any given activity.  It is just that one hemisphere seems to be more active or dominant than the other as different functions are brought into play.’[5]

How does uncertainty avoidance link to the brain metaphor?    Uncertainty avoidance the degree to which a society tolerates ambiguity (Jorgensen, F., PhD 2010).  This is similar to how the brain functions within an organizational context.  Based on the decision-making approach pioneered in the 1940s and 1950s by Nobel Prize Winner Herbert Simon, organizations act on incomplete information because ‘the members have limited information processing abilities.’  Therefore, organizations act as ‘kinds of institutionalized brains that fragment, routinize, and bound the decision-making process to make it manageable.’[6]  This echoes the degree to which organizations are willing to take risks in, for example, selling a new product to a new market in a foreign geographic location.  How open are they to attach accurate values to non-specific outcomes of that project.  To mitigate this risk organizations have since 1) invested in in management information systems (MIS) and decision-analytic tools to aid to make more rational decisions.[7] 2) By setting goals and targets rather than rely on controlling behaviour through rules and programs and 3) dependent on continuous feedback as a means of control.[8]

How does individualism link to the brain metaphor?  Individualism is defined as the degree of social connectedness among individuals (Hofstede, 1980)[9]  This is similar to the brain metaphor in the sense that whilst there are two hemispheres of the brain were one does to some extent dominate the other, ‘the complementary is illustrated in the evidence that although different people may bring a right- or left-brain dominance to a specific task, both hemispheres are necessary for effective action or problem solving to occur.’[10]  This highlights two level of thinking 1) Individualism is encouraged to some extent 2) Collectivism – combined efforts of individuals is also encouraged in an organizational culture.

How does masculinity link to the brain metaphor? Masculinity is the degree to which society allocate particular importance values to a specific gender – male or female.  We see such distinct similarity when we describe the functions of the left-right hemispheres of the brain.  ‘The right hemisphere plays a dominant role in creative, intuitive, emotional acoustic, and pattern recognition functions and controls the left-side of the body[11] as known as ‘soft values’ (Jorgensen, F., PhD 2010).  The left hemisphere is more involved with rational, analytic, reductive, linguistic, visual, and verbal functions while controlling the right side of the body,’[12]associated with ‘hard values’(Jorgensen, F., PhD 2010).  This supports Morgan’s metaphor of the brain.

In conclusion, Hoefstede’s views of national culture excluding (Michael Bond’s fifth dimension and Milkov’s sixth dimension (added as are result of Milkov’s World Survey) helps us understand Morgan’s metaphor of Organization’s as a brain at an 1) Organizational Framework level (Overview table above) 2) two-Hemispheres of the brain 3) as Decision-analytical tools and 4) Information Systems that store and process information. 

---

[1] ITAP International - http://www.itapintl.com/whoweare/news/146-organizational-culture-and-national-culture-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter-.html

[2] Dimensions of National Culture - http://www.geerthofstede.nl/culture/dimensions-of-national-cultures.aspx

[3] BNet - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_2_46/ai_79829823/pg_4/

[4] Morgan, G., Images of Organization, Pg 73

[5] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 74

[6] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 76-77

[7] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 77

[8] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 77

[9] BNet - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_2_46/ai_79829823/pg_4/

[10] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 74

[11] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 74

[12] Morgan, G., Image of Organizations, Pg 74

Copyright @ 31 October 2011.  BlogSpot by Tambudzai Ndoro, Non-Executive Director of Global Business Assignments Inc.,

The New Consciousness: How does Morgan's organizational view of 'Machines...

The New Consciousness: How does Morgan's organizational view of 'Machines...: Morgan’s overall analysis of industrial organizations looks at the more external and structural development of them. Organization behaviou...

How does Morgan's organizational view of 'Machines' and 'Organisms' relate with personality, values and perception concepts?

Morgan’s overall analysis of industrial organizations looks at the more external and structural development of them.  Organization behaviour looks at the internal make-up of this organization and how they contribute to a sustainable and stable organizational development.   Lets look at how Morgan’s organizational view of theories and models specifically machines and organisms relates with  personality, values, and perception theory and models and how those individual’s perceptions, values and attitudes relate to how we experience organizations.  

Morgan uses eight (8) metaphors to describe the different ways of how an organization can either be thought of, seen and how it functions or supposedly functions.  The identified metaphors are:  machines, organisms, brains, culture, political systems, psychic prisons, flux and transformation, instruments of documentation.   However, for purposes of this blog I will just focus on machines and organisms.  Organizational behaviour focuses on the human element of the organizational structure.  It is the people who are the biological organisms who make-up and drive organizational development.   According to several studies conducted after 1980 an individual’s performance in a work place can affect how well they performance, and in turn translates to the organization’s overall performance non-financially and financially.  As a result, since then, organizations have come up with personality pre-testing which predicts how an individual performs their job.  These tests includes, Myer-Briggs Types Indicator (MBTI), Jung’s Personality Types, the Five-Factor model and Cattell’s sixteen (16) personality factor to name a few.

Table 1.1.- Correlation between Organization Developments and Organizational Behaviour below, breaks down  Morgan’s metaphors  into their appropriate formal functions and how it translates with the organization’s today.  In addition, the table also shows how  individual(s) personality, values, and perceptions, become/are a thread that runs continuously throughout the entire organizational structure.  This is because no single metaphor can exist without the other metaphor in its description of the organization.  An indication of this is highlighted by Morgan when he compares an organization to a machine, “…the metaphor is incomplete…it ignores the human aspects,” which is resonated in the other metaphor that describes organizations, “biological organism.”  This in essence highlights the fact that there is a relationship between organizational development and organizational behaviour which is intertwined and perhaps detrimental to the existence and sustainability of any organization.  However, according to Morgan the “machine” metaphor encourages other ways of looking at the organization at management/bureaucratic  system(s).  When we look at it at that level we begin to interrogate the roles and functionality of such systems and how an individual placed at the level can meaningfully contribute to the mechanistic nature of the system.   It is now at these levels of management that an individual’s personality, values and perceptions plays a catalytic role.  It is at these levels that an individual is required to be methodological  and almost mechanical. There by shaping and influencing organizational behaviour in a top-down effect.

The “biological organism” metaphor that Morgan mentions implies that an organization is made up of many organ-parts, heterogeneous by sight, but all co-ordinating and working towards a common goal of being a functional whole and in the process , growing, changing and adapting to its environment.  This is highlighted when Morgan states “we come to see different types of organizations as belonging to different species.” It is at this level of organizational development that Human Resources Management Systems are put in place to plan, co-ordinate and facilitate the ever-changing and growing organization.  It is at this level that again an individual’s perception, values and perceptions plays a catalytic role in identifying and assessing skilful and sometimes highly specialized human resources to meet the organization’s needs for growth and sustainability.

Table 1.1. Correlation between Organization Developments and Organizational Behaviour

Key words	Metaphors for Organizations[1]	Formal Functions in Organizations	Personality, Values & Perceptions
Machines	As a goal-seeking machine with interchangeable parts	Bureaucratic Systems/Management Levels
Organisms	As a biological organism that continually adapts to change	Human Resources Management Systems

Personality

Personality is defined as “The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behaviour, which are peculiar to a specific person.”[2]  It is important for organization’s to measure an individual personality and/or preference profile to ensure that the individual fits within organization and its existing members, and  is suited to the role that they have applied for and are now have been recruited for.  This level of identification is closely associated with the Morgan’s theory of “goal-seeking machine with interchangeable parts”.  People are used as a resource to support the already existing bureaucratic system/management levels in the organization.  The process recruiting these “interchangeable parts” is starts at company’s talent management and selection process.  They are various interviewing processes in today’s world that enable to assess the person’s personality.  According to a study by Barrick & Mount, 1991, “conscientiousness and emotional stability are the best personality predictors of job performance across nearly all jobs.” How you assess conscientiousness and emotional stability is highly dependent on the interviewing process and tests the individual undergo.  For example, “Brad Smart, PhD, originated the CIDS Interview and first described it in his book: Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win by Hiring, Coaching, and Keeping the Best People. As its name states, it’s a chronological in-depth STRUCTURED survey. You're surveying a candidate's background, school and work, in structured, systematic manner to note not only skills and talents, but also patterns of responses he'll bring to your day.”[3] Other organizational testing used are to ascertain personality which in turn affects job performance where identified by Borman & Motowildo in 1993.  They states that testing an individual’s incremental validity helps predict that individual future performance as opposed to what they can currently do at the moment.  This highlights Morgan’s other metaphorical statement that describes organizations “a biological organism that continually adapts to change.” This is infers that because the organization itself is in a constant state of change and transformation the individual needs to be evaluated on their level of commitment to achieving that organizational need also referred to by Borman & Motowildo 1993 as “Organizational Citizenship Behaviours”.  This means that the individual has the ability to do more the required from their job functions that they were required to do.  It was further proofed that unlike selection tools, there has been no evidence to proof otherwise of different selection ratios between demographic groups.  Other methods of testing that have been used have been competency-based test.  This also assesses the individual management and leadership skills/styles, interpersonal and personal skills, technical knowledge, and commercial effectiveness.  Commercial Effectiveness in the Topgrading methodology above follows the Honey & Mumford Learning Styles questionnaire (LSQ).  The difference is instead of the candidate’s filling a checklist form, interviewers ask a series of work-related questions indirectly asking managers how they learn, how effective how they on learning commercial aspects of the industry related to the job they will be employed. 

Based the above-mentioned studies it is evident that personality is an important aspect in identifying the right fit or ‘part’ for the organisation.

Values

Values are defined as individual beliefs in our external environment, for example, work, family, etc.  If an individual’s value is systematic and follows their bureaucratic system then that individual will be able to fit with an organization defined as mechanic.  In addition, according to research findings cited, values of power, achievement usually lead to imply the individual is not a team player.  That individual is perhaps suited in a mechanical environment where human contact is limited.  However, values of conformity lead to an individual being more cooperative.  This may suggest that the individual is more suited to Morgan’s metaphor as a “biological organism” as they would be part of something bigger.  The study further proves that there is a relationship between values, personality and cognitive styles, which we discussed early affects how the individual will be placed or declined on the basis of their ability to fit with the organization’s description.

Perceptions

Perception is how the individual reacts or responds to the organizational environment that they have been placed: “a process of receiving information about and making sense of the

world around us; how we view and interpret what happens around us.”[4] Irrespective of their reaction this influences an individual’s attitude and behaviour in that environment.  Studies have shown that regular  employee-attitude surveys can be conducted by an organization to assess the importance of information on employers’ ideas and changes. Depending on the what environment the individual is placed in either machine-like or biological-like, aspects such as organisational commitment , job involvement, and job satisfaction that contribute to how that individual perceives that environment.   In addition, research finding have indicated that there is a statistical relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction that can either positively or negatively correlate with absenteeism and recruitment and retention turnover as well as ethical behaviour.  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1994) stated that there are three (3) possibilities for managers who want to build an organization that will last and in which people are motivated to contribute and to stay: "First, make the objective conditions of the workplace as attractive as possible. Second, find ways to imbue the job with meaning and value. Third, select and reward individuals who find satisfaction in their work.”[5]

In summary, Morgan’s view of theories and models specifically “machines” and “organisms” relates with  personality, values, and perception theories outlined above.  This in turn will affect how the individual perceives that organization in the future.

---

[1] COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL METAPHORS - http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ext/org.metaphors.html

[2] http://www.answers.com/topic/personality

[3] Small Business Resource of the Week: CIDS Interview July 10, 2008 Article - http://zanesafrit.typepad.com/zane_safrit/2008/06/small-busines-1.html

[4] Jorgensen, Frances PhD., Presentation 16 September 2010

[5] Jorgensen, Frances PhD., Presentation 16 September 2010

Copyright @ 31 October 2011. BlogSpot by Tambudzai Ndoro, Non-Executive Director of Global Business Assignments Inc.,