Cultural Constraints in Management Theories

Holfstede, G.  (1993).  Cultural constraints in management theories.  Academy of 

There is no such thing as a universal management theory - ways that management differs culturally around the world.

This article focused on the main idea that the concept of management, especially that which is accepted in U.S., differs around the world and there is no such thing as a universal management theory. 

The article begins by giving some historical background to the word of management and its related varied theories throughout time and cultures.  Managers, which are defined similarly in America and Britain, are portrayed as cultural heroes, but this is clearly not the case in other countries.  It then takes a look at management theories in other successful modern economies, starting with Germany. 

In Germany, the engineer, not the manager, is considered a heroic role.  An apprenticeship system, which includes courses involving work and classroom experiences, is the way in which many German presidents and CEOs have gotten to where they are.  They have no need for a manager who motivates, as is characterized in the American culture.  Instead, they expect their bosses to be the experts and take the role of assigning their tasks.  "Germans simply do not have a very strong concept of management" and it is apparent in their success that such management, as defined in US terms, may be more of a liability than an asset in their culture. 

In Japan, the core of their expertise is the permanent worker group, not the managerial class as in the US.  The article provides a comparative example of the way children are brought up and dealt with in these varying cultures, illustrating how the Japanese are "controlled by their group rather than the manager".  Ingrained in their way of successfully conducting Japanese management is the concept of performance maintenance theory of leadership, which differs from the "PM" type of leadership in the US.  However, their own style has worked for them and aspects of such forms of Japanese management have even been sought after by many American firms. 

In France, the US understanding of mangers does not exist.  Instead, they think in terms of becoming cadres like we think of becoming managers.  The big difference here is that cadres represent a type of social class.  It is attained by going to the "right" schools and it is a class that once reached, is gained forever.  So in France, the concept of the "honor each class", in which there is clear separation of superiors and subordinates, differs from the US concept of "fair contract" between employer and employee where managers have only certain prerogatives within limits. 

Holland differentiates itself from the others in that their management practices focus on a "need for consensus among all parties" and is not predetermined by class distinctions or a contractual relationship.  It is based on an open-ended exchange of views and a balancing of interests" which included more emphasis by individuals placed on the success of the organization, helping others and being consulted by superiors about decisions made. 

The Chinese clearly characterize management differently and very uniquely.  Their enterprises tend to be small, family owned and managed with one member acting as the centralized decision maker.  They are product/market focused, flexible and cost conscious.  Again, their success in economic development based on running their businesses the Chinese way proves that their system of management, not ours, works best for them. 

The author also discusses implications for management transfer to poor countries. These countries comprise four fifths of the world's population. We have created institutions to help wage the war on such poverty, but it seems like we are losing this war partly due to the "export of Western, mostly American, management theories" and practices which have done very little in helping them to develop. 

This further implies that Western management theories and practices cannot be and should not be expected to prove valid in non-western cultures and environments.  While Westerners can boast as experts in western technology and practices, local partners should be viewed as experts in local cultures, habits and feelings. 

This can be applied to parts of Russia and China that have been broken up and have uncertain economic futures.  The author claims that the best predictions for these places "are those based on a knowledge of history", some of which is included in past great literature of these countries. 

In reflecting on this "trip around the world", the author returns to the US, pointing out that the concept of management differs to varying degrees in different countries. The cultural differences between countries can be explained by using five bipolar dimensions.  By looking at how each country is positioned on each dimension, we are able to make inferences about their society, how they operate, and what role management plays in them.  These five dimensions include power distance, individualism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term vs. short-term orientation.  A table illustrates the findings of all the major countries. 

The US was found to be "below average on power distance and uncertainty avoidance, highly individualized, fairly masculine, and short-term oriented.  The author attributes this profile to three main elements that do not occur in other countries: the stress on market processes, the stress on the individual, and the stress on managers rather than workers. 

Overall, this article clearly illustrates how the definition and theories behind the concept of management differ around the world.  It points out, with good reason, why the managerial concept accepted in America is not applicable globally and shouldn't be assumed as ideal for all cultures.  Each culture has a strong background and distinct characteristics that differentiate it from others and encourage various meanings of management that work for each. 

Back to Aslan News