Carr Globalization and Culture at Work

Exploring their Combined Glocality
1. Auflage 2006
ISBN: 978-1-4020-7943-6
Verlag: Springer US
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 199 Seiten

Behaviour at work can no longer be stereotyped as global or local - modern or traditional - with very little in-between. Instead work behaviour is a complex interplay between Global and Local values. It takes place in a Glocality. Thus individual achievement co-exists with group aspirations, pay diversity takes place in a social context, teamwork reflects cultural narrative, and labour mobility is bound by community bias. Globalization and Culture at Work: Exploring their Combined Glocality breaks new ground by exploring such glocalities, and the implications they create for managing human potential better. The volume is essential reading for researchers, managers, culturalists and consultants of work behaviour alike.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Carr, Stuart C.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Acknowledgements;5
2;Contents;6
3;Preface;9
4;Chapter 1 Globalization;11
4.1;1. What is Globalization?;11
4.2;2. Localization;13
4.3;3. Glocalization;14
4.3.1;3.1. What glocality is not ;15
4.3.2;3.2. What glocality is and can be;16
4.4;4. Some Foundational Theory;17
4.4.1;4.1. A mirror to ourselves;18
4.5;5. Glocality At Work;20
4.5.1;5.1. Culture (Chapter 2);20
4.5.2;5.2. Achievement (Chapter 3);21
4.5.3;5.3. Incentives (Chapter 4);21
4.5.4;5.4. Empowerment (Chapter 5);23
4.5.5;5.5. Learning (Chapter 6);24
4.6;6. A Case in Point ;25
4.6.1;6.1.The Buick Bar & Grill;25
4.6.2;6.2. What went wrong at the Buick Bar & Grill: A glocal analysis;28
4.7;7. Conclusion;30
5;Chapter 2 Culture;31
5.1;1. Introduction;31
5.2;2. Country-level Studies;32
5.2.1;2.1. Hofstede’s IBM study;32
5.2.2;2.2. The Chinese Culture Connection;33
5.2.3;2.3 Are the ecological categories linked to work behavior?;33
5.2.4;2.4. Trompenaar’s waves of culture;33
5.2.5;2.5. Schwartz’s Value Survey;35
5.2.6;2.6. The GLOBE project;35
5.2.7;2.7. A critique of ecological approaches;36
5.3;3. Individual-level Values;37
5.3.1;3.1. Individualism;38
5.3.2;3.2. Belief in Egality–Hierarchy;39
5.3.3;3.3 Are the categories linked to work behavior?;40
5.3.4;3.4. Critique of the four-factor model;40
5.4;4. Organizational Culture;42
5.4.1;4.1. ‘Work group culture:’ What precisely is it?;43
5.4.2;4.2. Dimensions of work group culture;44
5.4.3;4.3. Is work group culture linked to work behavior?;45
5.4.4;4.4. Critique of organizational culture models;46
5.5;5. Occupational Cultures;46
5.5.1;5.1. Operator cultures;46
5.5.2;5.2. Engineering cultures;47
5.5.3;5.3. Executive cultures;47
5.5.4;5.4. Interactive schemata;47
5.5.5;5.5. Critique;47
5.6;6. Glocal Positioning;48
5.7;7. Cultural Positioning;48
5.7.1;7.1. Systems theory;49
5.8;8. Link to Glocality;50
5.9;9. The Generality of Escalation;50
5.9.1;9.1. To the shop floor;51
5.9.2;9.2 Some qualifications;52
5.9.3;9.3. Conclusion;52
5.10;10. Theories of Positioning;52
5.10.1;10.1. SIT and cultural positioning;53
5.10.2;10.2. SFT and cultural positioning;53
5.10.3;10.3 RCT and cultural positioning;54
5.11;11. Cultural Repositioning;55
5.12;12.Interpretation;56
5.13;13. Summary;57
6;Chapter 3 Achievement;58
6.1;1. A Brief History of the Study of Achievement at Work;58
6.1.1;1.1. Phase 1: A concept defined;59
6.1.2;1.2. Phase II: Ecological research;59
6.1.3;1.3. Phase III: In-country research;59
6.1.4;1.4. Phase IV: Questionnaire research;60
6.1.5;1.5. Phase V: Rejuvenation;60
6.1.6;1.6. An assessment;61
6.1.7;1.7. Social achievement;61
6.2;2. n Ach in Social Context;62
6.2.1;2.1. Australia;62
6.2.2;2.2. New Zealand;62
6.3;3. n Ach in Work Context;63
6.3.1;3.1. Envy at work;63
6.3.2;3.2. Envy and personality;64
6.3.3;3.3. Organizational structure;64
6.3.4;3.4. Jealousy at work;64
6.3.5;3.5. Abuse of power;65
6.3.6;3.6. Two key forms of backlash;65
6.3.7;3.7. A visual schema;65
6.3.8;3.8. Characters in the grid;66
6.3.9;3.9. Quality of work life;67
6.3.10;3.10. A new metaphor;67
6.3.11;3.11. The grid as descriptor;67
6.4;4. Research on Motivational Gravity;68
6.5;5. A Primary Strand: Measurement of Motivational Gravity;68
6.5.1;5.1. Scenario scaling;68
6.5.2;5.2. Motivational gravity scenario scaling;69
6.5.3;5.3. Scale properties;69
6.6;6. A Secondary Strand: Influences of Gravity on Work Behavior;70
6.6.1;6.1. Job selection;71
6.6.2;6.2. A critical test;72
6.6.3;6.3. A dip emerges;73
6.6.4;6.4. n Ach reconceptualized;74
6.6.5;6.5. Selection biases between groups;75
6.6.6;6.6. Critical appraisal;76
6.6.7;6.7. Performance management;76
6.6.8;6.8. Gender gaps in gravity;77
6.6.9;6.9. The perspective of achiever;78
6.6.10;6.10. Fear of success;78
6.6.11;6.11. Gravity and mental health;79
6.7;7. Systems Approach;79
6.7.1;7.1. A systems dynamic;79
6.7.2;7.2. An example of escalating self-destruction;80
6.7.3;7.3. A dysfunctional workplace;81
6.7.4;7.4. Case synthesis;81
6.8;8. Managing Motivational Gravity ;82
6.8.1;8.1. Personal solutions;82
6.8.2;8.2. Group solutions;82
6.8.3;8.3. Workplace socialization and training;83
6.9;9. Conclusion;84
7;Chapter 4 Pay;85
7.1;1. A Theoretical Foundation;85
7.2;2. Behavioral Theories of Work Motivation;86
7.3;3. Task-focused Theories of Motivation ;86
7.3.1;3.1. Scientific Management;86
7.3.2;3.2. Expectancy Theory;87
7.3.3;3.3. Goal Setting Theory;87
7.3.4;3.4. Brief summary of task-focused theories of motivation;88
7.4;4. Relationship-focused Theories of Motivation ;88
7.4.1;4.1. Meaning of Work Theory;88
7.4.2;4.2. Cognitive Evaluation Theory;89
7.4.3;4.3. Work Justice Theory;90
7.4.4;4.4. A key process;92
7.4.5;4.5 An early study;93
7.4.6;4.6. Underpayment in focus;93
7.4.7;4.7. Overpayment in focus;93
7.4.8;4.8. Equity Theory across groups;94
7.4.9;4.9. Synthesis of motivation theories and pay;94
7.4.10;4.10. A glocal hypothesis;95
7.5;5. Research on Double De-motivation ;95
7.5.1;5.1. Pay satisfaction;95
7.5.2;5.2. Work behavior;95
7.5.3;5.3. Consequences of relative pay;96
7.5.4;5.4. Double de-motivation in the field;97
7.5.5;5.5. Reasons for leaving;98
7.5.6;5.6. Links to the wider literature;98
7.5.7;5.7. Pay diversity and mental health;99
7.5.8;5.8. Double de-moralization?;99
7.5.9;5.9. Double de-motivation across groups: Theory;100
7.5.10;5.10 Double de-motivation across groups: Research;102
7.5.11;5.11. Some revealing glimpses;103
7.5.12;5.12. Double de-motivation in Process;103
7.6;6. The Case;103
7.6.1;6.1. A widened scope for double de-motivation;104
7.6.2;6.2. Beyond “developing” economies;104
7.6.3;6.3. Summary of double de-motivation research;105
7.7;7. Managing Pay Justice;105
7.7.1;7.1. Equity sensitivity;105
7.7.2;7.2. Realistic job previews;106
7.7.3;7.3. Social equity sensitivity;106
7.7.4;7.4. Social justice;106
7.7.5;7.5. Social Identity Theory;107
7.7.6;7.6. A lateral thought;108
7.7.7;7.7. A metaphor;108
7.7.8;7.8. Some new directions;109
7.7.9;7.9. Melded incentives;109
7.7.10;7.10. Some evidence;110
7.7.11;7.11. A case in point;110
7.8;8. Conclusion;111
8;Chapter 5 Power;112
8.1;1. The Concept of Empowerment;112
8.2;2. Defining Teamwork;113
8.2.1;2.1. Historical steps toward teams;113
8.2.2;2.2. A trend in empowerment;113
8.2.3;2.3. Do self-managed teams work?;113
8.2.4;2.4. Theoretical developments in team studies;114
8.3;3. The Mantra of Diversity;114
8.3.1;3.1. Levels of diversity;114
8.3.2;3.2. Evidence on diversity in personality;115
8.4;4. Contingency Approaches;115
8.4.1;4.1. Personality factors;115
8.4.2;4.2. Behavioral factors;116
8.4.3;4.3. Cultural factors;116
8.5;5. A Glocal Analysis ;117
8.5.1;5.1. Globalization;117
8.5.2;5.2. Localization;117
8.5.3;5.3. Glocalization;117
8.5.4;5.4. An alternative conception;118
8.6;6. An Acid Test;118
8.6.1;6.1. The world of practice;118
8.7;7. Teams through Development;119
8.7.1;7.1. Implications for practice;119
8.7.2;7.2. Incorporating some theory;120
8.7.3;7.3. Social identity processes;120
8.7.4;7.4. A glocality of teams;121
8.7.5;7.5. Enacting the glocality of teams;121
8.8;8. Mental Models;121
8.8.1;8.1. But what about groups?;122
8.8.2;8.2. Back to the basics: A fundamental question;122
8.9;9. An Approach to the Fundamental Question;123
8.9.1;9.1. A conceptual foothold;123
8.9.2;9.2. A theory;123
8.9.3;9.3. An innovative study;124
8.9.4;9.4. The Teams Project - Study I;124
8.9.5;9.5. Study II - Validation;124
8.9.6;9.6. An interpretation;127
8.10;10. A Glocality?;127
8.10.1;10.1. A new springboard;128
8.11;11. The Broken Promise;128
8.11.1;11.1. The case of Spectrum Paints;128
8.12;12. Case Analysis ;130
8.12.1;12.1. Supervisors;130
8.12.2;12.2. Shop floor;131
8.12.3;12.3. A glocal collision;131
8.12.4;12.4. Training for teamwork;132
8.12.5;12.5. Communication networks;132
8.12.6;12.6. A brief summary of communication networks research;132
8.12.7;12.7 A prediction;133
8.12.8;12.8. Emergent findings;133
8.12.9;12.9. Conclusion;134
8.13;13. Managing the Broken Promise;134
8.13.1;13.1. Preparing empowerees;134
8.13.2;13.2. Preparing for supervisory resistance;135
8.13.3;13.3. A possible antidote to broken promises;136
8.13.4;13.4. How, precisely, might it be done?;137
8.13.5;13.5. Some potential limitations;137
8.14;14. Conclusion;137
8.15;Acknowledgment;138
9;Chapter 6 Learning;139
9.1;1. Boundary-less Careers;139
9.1.1;1.1. The focus of boundary-less careers;140
9.1.2;1.2. Thinking beyond national boundaries;140
9.2;2. Boundary Conditions;140
9.2.1;2.1. EA research;141
9.2.2;2.2. Migration (and acculturation);142
9.2.3;2.3. Critique of the acculturation paradigm;142
9.2.4;2.4. Where are migration promises most likely to be broken?;143
9.3;3. Utilizing the Immigrants We Already Have;143
9.3.1;3.1. Case analysis of vocational broken promises;145
9.3.2;3.2. Theories of brain waste;146
9.3.3;3.3. Similarity Attraction Theory (or SAT);146
9.3.4;3.4. Social Identity Theory (or SIT);146
9.3.5;3.5. An empirical test of SIT versus SAT;148
9.3.6;3.6. Social Dominance Theory (or SDT);149
9.4;4. An Empirical Test of SAT, SIT & SDT ;150
9.4.1;4.1. Conceptualizing a setting;150
9.4.2;4.2. The study;150
9.4.3;4.3. Summary of data pattern;152
9.4.4;4.4. Synopsis;152
9.4.5;4.5. Limitations;153
9.5;5. Implications for Policy and Practice;153
9.5.1;5.1. Content of training;154
9.5.2;5.2. Experiential methods;154
9.5.3;5.3. A linking theory;154
9.5.4;5.4. Facilitating double loop learning;155
9.5.5;5.5. Minorities at work: The evidence;156
9.5.6;5.6. How could “migrant minority influences” work?;156
9.5.7;5.7. Key forms of behavior exhibited by the majority;156
9.5.8;5.8. Key forms of behavior exhibited by the minority;158
9.5.9;5.9. Dynamic interactions;158
9.5.10;5.10. Welcome to your Glocality;158
9.5.11;5.11. Priming for change;158
9.5.12;5.12. Change;159
9.5.13;5.13. Overall process;159
9.6;6. Beyond Migration;159
9.7;7. A Synthesis ;160
9.7.1;7.1. Chapter 1: Glocality;160
9.7.2;7.2. Chapter 2: Culture;160
9.7.3;7.3. Chapter 3: Achievement;160
9.7.4;7.4. Chapter 4: Pay;161
9.7.5;7.5. Chapter 5: Power;161
9.7.6;7.6. Chapter 6: Learning;162
9.7.7;7.7. Caveats;162
9.8;8. Conclusion;162
9.9;References;164

Leseproben

Chapter 2 Culture (p. 21-22)

Culture consists of patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values. Source: C. Kluckhohn (1951: 86).

… the effort for these years to live in the dress of Arabs, and to imitate their mental foundation, quitted me of my English self, and let me look at the West and its conventions with new eyes: they destroyed it all for me. Source: T. E. Lawrence (1926/7, 1997: 14)

1. Introduction

An interesting feature of Kluckhohn’s definition of culture above is that it was originally written to define "culture" broadly, i.e., beyond work itself. Despite that wider, societal ambit however, the definition is often cited in narrower, occupational circles (e.g., Aycan & Kanungo, 2001: 390). Evidently, Kluckhohn’s definition of culture captures what for many scholars is an essence of culture, whenever it is found and wherever its influences manage to extend. In that sense, it provides us with a working definition of culture with which to begin this chapter. A further interesting feature of Kluckhohn’s definition is that it excludes organizational climate. In this chapter too, culture is differentiated from climate, which consists more of atmospheric factors such as aggression, motivation, or trust (Moran & Volkwein, 1992). Climate factors such as these are discussed in detail later in the book, firstly under motivational gravity (Chapter 3), then as double demotivation (Chapter 4) and broken promises (Chapter 5), and, finally, as inverse resonance (Chapter 6). Underlying each of these climate-related processes, however, is the presence and influence of culture. Culture, therefore, comprises the underlying values and assumptions held, made, and above all lived on a daily basis within any work group (Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson, 2000).

Our definition of culture, as Kluckhohn’s definition implies it should, also spans multiple levels. Those levels range from country-level analyses of societal cultures; within-country individual differences in those values (usually in fact either within a single country or across a pair of countries); to organizational cultures.

Organizational cultures include various sub-cultures, from departments within the organization to the micro-cultures of workplace teams. Organizational cultures also embody and intersect with cultures of occupations, for example amongst a company’s in-house or out-sourced engineers and accountants. Many of us will recognize these various levels of identification. We regularly don them, and inhabit them, each in turn, over the course of a working day. Logically therefore, and as the quotation from Lawrence above presages, a key challenge in studying culture at work is to develop theories about how different forms of cultural identity transit from one kind of identification to the next.

One of the key lenses for understanding cultural transitions like the above is glocalization. For example, occupational values (and norms that are relatively global) may take precedence during disputes about industrial safety; whereas societal identity (a more localized form of positioning) will come to the fore when a group of foreign expatriates arrive, "overpaid and over here," to work on our employer’s latest international project. It is therefore disappointing that much of the literature on culture at work has ignored this kind of fluidity and plurality. Instead, the study of culture at work has been largely a-theoretical (Aycan & Kanungo, 2001).

Specifically, the literature has concentrated on building models of measurement only. These models have focused on describing in detail the n-dimensionality of cultural space at one kind of level; and on the content of those (proposed) dimensions, principally in terms of espoused values. It is fitting, therefore, that we begin our journey through work and culture with an overview of the foremost models for measuring cultural values at work.

2. Country-level Studies

The glue that both binds country-level studies together, and, in addition, helps to set them apart, is that they each treat one country (and sometimes region) as one research "participant." Scores for questionnaire items, normally focused on work-relevant values, are averaged for each country (or region) participating in the survey. In most studies, each country’s participants then effectively become one line of data in an exploratory factor analysis, of the country-level responses on a questionnaire. Although a reasonable descriptive term for this kind of approach generally would be inter-national, the approach has actually become known, in the literature, as ecological. The context for coining this term ecological was the influential study of work culture at IBM worldwide (Hofstede, 1980; for a recent restatement and overview, Hofstede, Triandis, Smith, Bond, Fu & Pasa, 2001; for a more critical point of view, again focused largely on measurement, Spector & Cooper, 2002).

2.1. Hofstede’s IBM study

The original 1980 publication of this study has recently been revised (in Hofstede, 2001) and thereby gone on, reportedly, to become a most cited work in the social sciences (Yoo & Donthu, 2002). Many readers will know the details of Hofstede’s work itself, which was an organizational survey of 40 (and later 50) countries, represented by over 100,000 employees of a single multinational company, IBM. The core result to emerge from this survey was a four-dimensional mapping of ecological culture space, into individualism–collectivism; power distance (belief in hierarchy and keeping social distance between strata); uncertainty–avoidance (desire for the security and certainty of rules); and – most contentiously – "masculinity– femininity." The latter, according to Hofstede, reflects the degree to which "male" values (supposedly emphasizing "assertiveness" and "acquisitiveness’) tend to prevail in a society over their "softer" and supposedly, also, more "feminine" counterparts (e.g. the stressing of "interpersonal relations", and "companionship").