I shall discuss how national culture does influence management styles. It is necessary to identify what culture is and how it differs across nations. As far back as 1952 over 160 definitions of culture existed (Kroeber and Kluckholn). With Taylor (1881) being the earliest identified as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. National culture is the values, beliefs and assumptions adopted or learned that distinguish one group of people from another [Beck and Moore 1985, Hofstede 1991]. It can be unconsciously learned as a result of adapting to societal norms manifested in physical objects and social interactions.

Much of the literature states that national cultures vary and that a variety of management practices, including decision-making, leadership style (Globe 2004), and ethics (Resick et all 2006) differ by national culture. Hofstede (1983) suggests that nations are unique with their own unique culture based on the their values, beliefs and shared experiences. Hofstede identified these five dimensions as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity – femininity, individualism v collectivism, and later long-term v short-term orientation. His findings are still widely used to explain differences in national culture, however his methodologies have been highly criticised.

Globe more recent study used a large group of researchers to collect data in almost 1,000 organizations in 62 societies. The Hofstede study was based on the re-analysis of an existing database of employee attitude survey scores assembled by one single multinational: the IBM Corporation. GLOBE builds upon Hofstede work and expanded the dimensions to nine. Therefore I shall use GLOBE when discussing national differences in culture and the implications for management practices.

Power Distance is the extent to which a society accepts the unequal distribution of power. Therefore a country with a high power distance will be more accepting of authority and power is seen as creating social order. A country with a low power distance will see power as a bad thing and link it to coercion and corruption. This has implications of this for management practices, if a manager wants to be successfully he must conform to these norms, in order to effectively manage his employees. In organizations, power distance the degree of centralization and control exerted by managers. Companies in high power distance countries have greater formality and respect shown to people in position of power. This means that employees are less likely to question managers and managers expect employees to work with very little participation or negotiation. If a manager does ask for involvement it is thought that the manager does not know how to do his job (Morris and Pavett 1992). This means that participation will not lead to an improvement in performance of the organisation. Team building practices across hierarchal levels within the organization tend to yield few results due a lack of communication (Jaeger 1986).

The opposite can be said for orgainsations operating in low power distance countries. All levels of the organisation will want to participate and be included in decision making, they will question authority and leadership cannot be assumed because of a position of power. Interactions will be informal between managers and subordinates. Managers cannot expect to be followed purely based upon their position of power, they will need to justify their decision and negotiate changes with employees.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This is “the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events” (House et al, 2004, p. 30].

Countries that exhibit high levels of uncertainty avoidance rely heavily on formulized process and procedures, order and stability are favored by society, resistant to change and only moderate calculated risks are taken. Low uncertainty avoidance countries are less order and meticulous, and rely on informal norms for most matters, using informal interactions.

Managers operating in high uncertainly avoidance countries will feel the need to be in control of all situations with the organisations. Laurent [1986] found that managers agreed with the statement “It is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that his subordinates may raise about their work.” more in high uncertainty avoidance countries. This means that managers will need to give more guidance to subordinates because employees prefer the certainty of rules and procedures. Low uncertainty avoidance employees prefer the discretion that goes with ambiguity and therefore see rules and regulation as unnecessary and a hindrance to their job.

When uncertainty occurs in high avoidance countries managers are more like to see this has a crisis and act more extremely by reorganize the whole organization as mitigate the uncertainty is viewed as a solution to the crisis. Managers in Low Countries will reacted to the change with fewer alterations (Schneider and DeMeyer 1991).

Humane Orientation

Is seen as “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others” (House et al, 2004,p. 569). Countries with high humane orientation people are motivated by a need of belonging and acceptance, all members of society are responsible for societies’ happiness, as concern for others is valued. Societies with low orientation are motivated by power, self-interests are promoted, it’s the job of the government to support disadvantage individuals. In organisations with a high orientation, managers must give greater consideration to all the stakeholders of the company, as the primary goal of making a profit is share with satisfying all the stakeholders (Fredrick 1987). Managers provide support based on mentoring rather than supervisory. Taylorism is seen as inhumane, and can lead to employee absenteeism and dissatisfaction with their job (Elam and Borjeson 1991). Managers must work hard to create a sense of belonging within an organization. Managers will have a smaller span of control due to the face-to-face time need by employees in low power distances countries. . Managers will need to show compassion in order to be seen as effective and be concerned for non-job related issues such as childcare etc. (Keating and Martin 2004). The opposite can be said for low humane orientation managers for example relationships are formal, control is based on bureaucratic practices and employees prefer to work autonomously meaning a manager will supervise.

Future orientation

Is “the degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification” (House et al, 2004,p. 282). Countries with high future orientation emphasis the long term over short term. They have the propensity to save for the future, planning will take a more longer strategic course and place a higher priority on long term success. Society feels it is possible to have success and spiritual fulfillment without sacrificing the other. Societies with low future orientation tend to spend low and save later, as they value instant gratification, which may lead to the low levels of economic success. Spirituality and material success are mutually exclusive and require trade offs.

Managers of organisations with high future orientation are required to provide long-term solutions to problems rather than quick solutions that might affect long term goals. Managers with vision are seen to be more effective in more future orientated societies. This means they need to plan ahead and be well prepared for the future. Strategy making would be considered a major part of a manager’s duty.

Gender Egalitarianism

This demission is significant because it is one of the predictors of the most widely admired characteristic of successful leaders. Gender egalitarianism is “the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality” (House et al, 2004p. 30). Societies with high gender egalitarianism have less occupational sex segregation and award women with a role in the community with regard to decision-making and status. Women have similar levels of education and workforce participation. The opposite can be said for low equalitarian countries (House et al 2004 p. 359). This difference means that managers are less likely to be allowed to discriminate employees based on gender, in some case they may need to promote women because of quotas often referred to as positive sexism, for example in Norway in 1985 all public committees had to have 40% women on their board. A significant correlation has been found that organisations with higher female participation are more open to change.

In-group collectivism

Is “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” (House et al 2004 p 30). Countries with high in-group collectivism see individuals integrated into cohesive groups, with the self-viewed as interdependent on the group. Obligations to the group dictate social behavior. Communication is indirect in order not to be seen to break obligations. People have a close relationship with their extended family. In low in-group collective countries people emphasis rational decision making, activities will be undertaken alone as the self is view as independent as personal needs dictate behavior (House et al, 2004, p. 454.) The implications for managers in high in-group collective country training must take place within a group in order to ensure conformity to new practices. Rewards should be based on the group’s performance, as individuals will not be motivated by individual rewards as effectively (Bond and Smith 1996).

Performance Orientation

Is the extent to which society encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, excellence, and performance improvement (House et al 2004 p 239). High performance societies are more interested in results than people, causing a more assertive, competitive materialistic society. Individuals are on control of their success and education is critical for success. Communication is direct, explicit and to the point. Low performance orientate societies have a high respect for a holistic view of quality of life. Harmony and sympathy valued, and behavior that contradicts this such as being assertive is not socially acceptable.

The implications of this for managers in high orientation countries are that, employees will expect monetary rewards for motivation, this can be done through targets. This means that clear appraisal methods must be used to communicate to employees what is expected of them. Employees will seek training and development from manager in order to improve their performance. Managers must be able to give feedback in order to help employee’s meet desired performance. Promotion should be giving to the employee must able to improve their performance.

In low orientation countries managers cannot motivate employees to meet targets based on monetary rewards, merit pay based on competition can be view as destructive because being motivated by money is seen by society as inappropriate. Feedback must be given indirectly as it is view as judgmental. Performance appraisals systems have to be based on loyalty and cooperation, because sympathy is valued.

Institutional collectivism

Is the “the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action” (House et al, p. 30). Societies with high institutional collectivism see each member of an institution as being highly interdependent within the organization, therefore important the group makes decisions. Group goals are more important that individuals goals. Motivation is based on fulfilling duties within the group. In low institutional collectivism societies individuals are seen as independent. Motivation is based on individual needs and interests.

This influences management practice as managers in high institutional collectivism countries as relationships within an organization are important. Therefore employees tend to stay with an organization for a the long term Employees are willing to compromise to avoid conflict within a group, in order to great the best solution for the group, therefore a manager must make sure that creative ideas are not be blocked in order to avoid conflict. Rewards and promotion are based on filling gaps within the group a manager must ensure he does this while still ensure the best person gets the job. No one individual is responsible for the performance of the group.

In high institutional individualism, employees are motivated my individual needs, managers was negotiate this trade off between personal and organizational goals. Manager must mitigate conflict directly in order to show that everyone’s needs have been met.

Assertiveness

Is “the degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others” (House et al, p. 30). Highly assertive countries value dominant and tough behavior. Opinions and thoughts are expressed openly. In low assertive countries they value cooperation and speak indirectly in order to keep face.

The implications of this for a manager are that a highly assertive society will find it difficult to solve conflict as everyone will want to express their views, however people are not easily offended as they value results over relationships. They are motivated by rewards and mangers need to highlight the opportunities to employees in order to motivate them.

In low assertive countries managers must listen closely to indirect communication in order to gain feedback from employees as they are not likely to participate directly in feedback. Loyalty is important as trust is built on predictability, therefore a manager must be loyal to employees if he is to be trusted.

Conclusion

As you can see national or societal culture significantly influences how managers are going to conduct themselves. However so too does the organization and its culture and the personal values of the individual manager. However these are both influenced by national culture therefore national culture indirectly affects management practice through these also. The mediation of personal and cultural values is different effect on managers. A study by Bradley and Byrne 2007 account it to be 70% to be equated to national culture. Therefore I conclude that culture is the must significant influence on management practice.