Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Culture and Behaviour

Maurice Yolles (prof.m.yolles@gmail.com)Liverpool John Moores University

Invited paper - Increasing Competitiveness or Regional, National and International Market Development - New Challenges, September, 4 - 6, 2007,

Ostrava

Abstract

Cultural mapping approaches as originated by Hofstede have become important to understanding the nature and impact of cultures. An exploration of cultural mapping is made, and how this has led to empirical studies is indicated. The Hofstede et al study on the manifestation of corporate culture is considered, and related in brief to the knowledge cybernetics schema, which represents a “holonic” view of the autonomous organisation that sees it as a whole rather than as a set of parts. Some limitations of the Hofstede et al findings as a manifestation of culture are also briefly explored within this context.

1. Introduction

Cultural mapping approaches that enable distinct cultures to be compared were popularised by Hoftede (1980, 1987, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2002). Hofstede’s (1994) model adopts a four level ontological theory, and uses four (and later five) dimensions of measurement to classify culture. His base proposition that arise from a computing metaphor is that culture is a “collective programme” of the minds of a coherent group that differentiates them from other groups. Understanding culture and cultural differentiation has therefore become an important task from others like Hall (1984), Trompenaars (1997), Schwartz (1994), House et al (2002), and more recently Yolles (2007).

Exploring the general dynamics of culture has been an academic activity for much of the 20 th

Century (e.g., Sorokin, 1939-1942). However, creating classifications of culture that enable it to be “decomposed” in to generic elements that can be used to map any individual culture has been a more recent interest, seriously since the 1980s. The notion of cultural mapping, however, seems to stem from an earlier time, with the quote by Kluckhohn (1962, pp317-318; cited by Hofstede, 2001): "In principle ... there is a generalized framework that underlies the more apparent and striking facts of cultural relativity. All cultures constitute so many somewhat distinct answers to essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by the generalities of the human situation. ... Every society's patterns for living must provide approved and sanctioned ways for dealing with such universal circumstances as the existence of two sexes; the helplessness of infants; the need for satisfaction of the elementary biological requirements such as food, warmth, and sex; the presence of individuals of different ages and of differing physical and other capacities.”

Hofstede et at (1990) have also been interested in the manifestations of corporate culture in organisations. His rationale for this is an ontology that explores the connection between values and their manifestations through heroes, rituals, and symbols, and practices that are hero, ritual and symbol rich. In doing this he adopts a model by Deal and Kennedy that explores the relationship between corporate risk and reward. While the study that results from this inquiring into corporate culture was path breaking, on reflection one must ask if the model represents sufficient about the manifestations of corporate culture. To undertake this exploration we shall look at the study through the lens of a new paradigm, that of knowledge cybernetics (KC).

1

2. Culture and Paradigms

Hofstede (1991) called culture the “software of the mind” that forms through learned patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. His idea of culture as a “collective programming” connects human nature, which is neither programmed nor programmable, to the individual’s personality which is programmable.

So how is personality programmable? Personality is “an individual’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms (hidden or not) behind those patterns” (Funder, 1997, pp.1, 2), and is a property of the individual. Personality is developed during a process of socialisation, in which individuals learn the culture of the social collective in which they are a part, and how to respond to it. People are all individual in the way they see the world, and how they do so determines how they respond to behaviour/ actions within it. As a result they develop a personal worldview that is programmed by their life experiences and lies at the base of their personality. As their beliefs, values and attitudes change, so does their personal worldview and this affects their understanding of “reality”.

Worldview may therefore be seen as a personalised elaboration of culture that underpins personality development. As such it is a generator of personal knowledge that arises from both learning experience and its interpretation. Worldview is represented through language using a cognitive space of concepts, patterns of knowledge and meanings. It has a personalised cognitive belief system, and both a normative and a cognitive control of behaviour (or action). In other words worldview is a personalised reflection of culture with patterns of experiential and learned individual conceptual and practical knowledge that directly affects social and other forms of behaviour.

Worldview may also be shared within a social collective forming a “collective worldview”. Here, every individual in the collective retains their own ‘realities’, while using collective patterns of knowledge to share meaning. All the attributes of personal worldview are also applicable to the collective, when its personal attributes are replaced by normative ones.

While personal worldviews are normally informal (or unexpressed), collective worldviews may be either formal or informal. A formalised collective worldview is a paradigm, when more or less the normative: belief system is expressed, patterns of conceptual and practical knowledge are visible to others, and expectations of behaviour (or practice) are explicitly identified. The members of a particular paradigm tend to be restricted in their practice to collective expectations of behaviour. Thus for example, in the science paradigm there are “ways of doing things” and those who do not follow prescription undertake “bad science” which is decried as unacceptable with those who transgress being excluded. In another instance, corporate employees who do not follow expected operative practice associated with their departmental paradigm will be dismissed if the contravention is considered to be serious.

The word culture as we use it here is an abstract term that can be defined in terms of a number of attributes that are relatively stable and normative (or shared). These attributes are: language, social behaviour, and a cognitive belief system (attitudes, values and beliefs). The beliefs are conceived to have three components (Rokeach, 1968): cognitive, representing knowledge with degrees of certainty − more generally cognition is “of the mind, the faculty of knowing, perceiving or conceiving”; affective, since a belief can arouse an affect centred around an object; and behavioural since the consequence of a belief is action.

Beliefs are a determinant for not only behaviour, but also values and attitudes. Values (Rokeach, 1968, p124) are abstract ideas representing a person’s beliefs about ideal modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals. Attitude (Rokeach, 1968, p112) is an enduring organisation of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner. Beliefs, values, and attitudes have a special place together. Beliefs are contained in an attitude, and attitudes occur within a larger assembly of attitudes. The collections of beliefs, attitudes and

2

values are referred to by Rokeach as cognitive organisation, but here we shall refer to this assembly as a belief system. The belief system also acts as an imperative for behaviour.

Patterns of shared collective social knowledge are generated within culture, and operate to underpin cultural meanings. They are formulated in part by propositions that arise from the belief system. Cultural attributes are not consciously adopted but are rather internalised within a society. As a result social behaviour is conditioned by the limits of what constitute culturally acceptable behaviour (Hall, 1983). We only become aware of the conditioning when we are severely challenged, for instance in intercultural situations.

Hofstede’s notion of practices and its relationship with values, norms, attitudes and behaviour really requires further examination. The idea of practice within stable groups of people was an interest of Kuhn in his exploration of the paradigm (Figure 1). When we speak of the paradigm we are usually interested in normative behaviour. This is distinct from organised group behaviour or action that is not part of the paradigm but is dependent on it. It is cognitive organisation (of attitudes, values and beliefs) operating together with the basic set of assumptions, logic, and normative behaviour that enables organised activity to occur. Paradigms offer a framework that determines how the organisation should operate, and what it considers to be important for its decision making and its activities. It is therefore practice centred. It is not only normative behaviour that is important, but patterns of behaviour since the paradigm “governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners” (Kuhn, 1970, p180). The paradigm holders are likely practitioners that carry out actions and have behaviour that fit modes of practice. Such modes of practice occur with the development of patterns of behaviour in which group norms arise with ordering processes of behaviour that have been conditioned by culture. This ordering process may be an indication of the “collective personality” of the group. While culture is defined by a relatively stable normative language and cognitive belief system, it also involves normative social behaviour that can be expressed in terms of practice. So what is the connection between paradigmatic practice and culture?

Figure 1: The nature of the paradigm with its orientation towards practice

Since the paradigm has a cultural base, it also has a language associated with it that enables the ideas of those within the group to be expressed. There is a body of theory that tells us that culture and language are closely related (Yolles, 1998). In the study of natural languages the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Giglioli, 1972) explains that there is a relativistic relationship between language structure and culture. It in particular relates to the communication of ideas between members of the group. This line of thought is also supported, for instance, by Habermas (1979), and by Maturana (1988) and the ideas contained within the subject of autopoiesis (Mingers, 1995, p79). Here, language is considered to be an activity embedded in the ongoing flow of

3

actions, rather than a purely descriptive thing. It therefore has the attributes of activity that occur within a sociocultural environment to which it responds.

Language operates as an enabling mechanism for the paradigmatic group. Since communications is central to the ability of the group to work, language may be seen as a way of enabling a class of paradigmatic explanations to be generated. The framework of thought that develops within the group is cultural and will therefore be reflected in the language used to transmit those ideas. The propositional base of the paradigm that lies at its foundation will determine the language of the group, just as the language itself develops this base.

Organisations have their own collective paradigm underpinned by their own organisational macro-culture. They are normally structured into occupational units (e.g., a department of finance or production), which have local paradigms underpinned by their own local micro-culture. This differentiation into a plurality of organisational paradigms often causes problems in communication and operational cohesion (Yolles, 1999). Since paradigms are culturally based, it follows that the relationship between an organisation’s paradigm and those of its departments stems from the interconnection between the organisational culture and departmental cultures.

3. Cultural Ontology

Culture influences not only how individuals behave, but also how they perceive and understand the social behaviour of others (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). This occurs because during cultural development patterns of social knowledge are created which are effective in establishing shared meanings. The sharing process is called normative: thus for instance, in a given culture there are normative (or shared) values in which certain objects become treasures or social icons. The icons will not be common to other cultures with different normative values. Thus for instance, during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mau’s little red book became an icon for life-style of a core group of Chinese. More recently in Europe the football star David Beckham has taken on a similar role for a significant subsection of society. While both examples given represent icons, their natures are very different. The little red book was a symbol for the Chinese Cultural Revolution, while David Becket is a hero who is socially elevated by those who value this image and style of life.

While culture has an iconic nature that is constituted as heroes (as admired persons who serve as an example for behaviour) and symbols (such as words, gestures, colour or other artefacts that carry a special meaning), it also has ritual. Ritual is a formalised, predetermined set of symbolic actions generally performed in a particular environment at a regular, recurring interval, and is prescribed by the traditions that the cultural group holds to. The purpose of rituals is to greet and pay respect to something (e.g., and idea or concept) or someone (e.g., a person because of their iconic behaviour/achievements or their symbolic role position). Hence rituals are an illustration of the implicit and explicit patterns of social behaviour that, for Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), occur through the acquisition and transmission of symbols. Other reflections of culture occur in communication, manners, dress codes, social rules and role models. Culture is historically derived, and composed of selected ideas and their attached values. It results from the accumulated experiences of action, and it conditions future action.

The normative nature of cultures differs according to the composition of their collective membership (Triandis and Suh, 2002). So culture has an individual dimension. Having said this, the impact of the individual on a culture is likely to be relative to the size of the population that make it up because of its normative nature, though other factors also come into play like how stable the culture is.

Defining an ontology for culture provides the basis for its understanding. Ontology is the study of Being or existence, and it can be used to define the nature of reality through “argumented systematisation” (Cocchiarella, 1991). Now, a function of ontology is to distinguish between distinct modes of Being through the creation of a referencing system. Ontological analysis develops to enable one to separate off distinct realities to enable a more manageable analysis to

4

develop, and thereby resulting in more detailed explanations than would otherwise be possible. Thus theories of levels or categories develop. It is theory of levels that have been used to understand the nature of cultural mapping (Dahl, 2004).

A simple two level model of culture would be as follows: one level is constituted by values and the other by behaviour or artefacts. The values level is not directly visible, but the behaviour or artefacts level is.

3.1 Hofstede’s Cultural Ontology

A more complex four level model was created by Hofstede (1991). He conceives of the levels as being embedded one with the other like the layers of an onion, creating a mutual dependency between them. Values form the most hidden layer of culture and are constituted as (Hofstede’s, 1994, p.8): “broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others.” They represent the ideas that people have about how things “ought to be”. As such they strongly influence behaviour. Behaviour is seen as a cultural manifestation, and when this is normative then within the context of the paradigm practices are ultimately derived (Figure 2). Such practices can also be seen as types of behaviour that are sanctioned by the social collective. While they are visible, they carry invisible cultural meanings that extend across all the three outer layers For Dahl (2004) the concept of ‘practices’ has not been adequately defined by Hofstede, or adequately differentiated from rituals and symbols.

The general representation of culture and its manifestations used by Hofstede et al (1990) is the “onion” layer model shown in figure 1. This has been used to explore the manifestations of culture within corporate environments, in which Hofstede differentiated between values, rituals, heroes and symbols, and practices (Table 1), originally postulated by Deal and Kennedy (1982). This model also appears to be a simplified version of the model considered by Lundberg (1985) and developed by Dalmau and Dick (1987).

Figure 2: The Hofstede “Onion” Layer Model of Culture

Manifestations of cultureType of

ManifestationExplanation

Practices: visible to an observer, and having culturally specific meaning

Symbols Include words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular meaning within a culture, and who thus serve as models for behaviour

Heroes Personifications having highly prized characteristics that serve as models for behaviour.

Rituals Collective activities that are technically superfluous but socially essential within a culture, and are carried out for their own sake

5

Values Non-specific feelings of good and evil, beauty and ugly, normal and abnormal, rational and irrational; within work culture, assessment of work goals is made like the characteristics of an ideal job, general beliefs, like competition between employees usually does more harm than good.

Table 1: Nature of Culture and its Manifestations (Hofstede et al, 1990)

4. An Alternative Ontology

The problem with most ontological representations is that, like those shown in Figures 1 and 2, they are static formulations of a collection of related concepts that do not take into account the dynamics or relativity of perspective or social composition. Also, creating a layer typology with hierarchically defined embedded fixed layers can be a rather limiting way of defining a schema that explores the relationship between culture and behaviour, and a more general model that depicts how the distinct layers relate to each other is desirable. This would provide a more comprehensive means of creating an analysis for culture and its manifestations.

Here we shall propose an alternative to the static layer model, postulated by coupling two distinct theories, those that arise from Piaget and Beer. This coupling is axiomatic, and proposes that the intentional ability of an autonomous human activity system to be viable and therefore durably survive in a potentially hostile environment is a direct function of what we shall refer to operative intelligence (Figure 3).

Figure 3: “Onion” ontology showing the connection between the ability of an autonomous system to durably survive in a potentially hostile environment

The notions of viability for autonomous systems achieved prominence through the work of Stafford Beer (1979). For Yolles (1999) a viable system is one that can be seen to be self-dependent, and thus take on an independent existence and may be thought of as being autonomous. Argyris (1976) argues that the viability of such systems lies in their ability to respond to unanticipated environmental changes, and a system is viable if it can respond to changes whether or not they have been foreseen. Viability, then, is the ability of an autonomous system to durably survive.

To explore operative intelligence, we shall refer here to Austin’s (2005) explanations of Piaget’s (1950) theory of child development as posited by Demetriou et al (1998). We also note that Yolles (2006) argues that work like that of Piaget can be extended from the individual to the collective autonomous systems. This assumes that in collectives normative cultural structure can occur because the symbolic forms that create it can have a meaning that is to some extent shared by individuals within it. The coherence of the culture is ultimately determined by the strength of the capacity to so share.

Piaget’s theory describes intelligence within the context of cognitive development that frames how the world is understood and represented. Operative intelligence is dynamic and

6

intimately connected to understanding. It is responsible for the representation and manipulation of the transformational aspects of reality. It involves all actions that are undertaken so as to anticipate, follow or recover the transformations of the objects or persons of interest.

Piaget assigns the name figurative intelligence to reflections of operative intelligence. Figurative intelligence is static and representative of what has been extracted through the operative intelligence. It is responsible for the representation of the static aspects of reality. It involves any means of representation used to keep in mind the states that intervene between transformations i.e., it involves perception, drawing, mental imagery, language and imitation. Because states cannot exist independently from the transformations that interconnect them, it is the case that the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their meaning from the operative aspects of intelligence.

Piaget further posited that this process of understanding and change involves the two basic functions: assimilation, and accommodation. Assimilation refers to the active transformation of information so that it may be integrated into already available mental schemes. Sternberg (1996) notes that accommodation refers to the active transformation of the mental schemes so that the particularities of whatever the individual is interacting with may be taken into account. For Piaget intelligence is active in that it depends on the actions carried out by the individual in order to construct and reconstruct his/her models of the world. It is also constructive because mental actions are coordinated into more inclusive and cohesive systems and in this way are raised to more stable and effective levels of functioning. When one function dominates over the other they generate representations belonging to figurative intelligence.

Interestingly, Piaget’s theory of intelligence through assimilation and accommodation has been used by Kolb (1974) in his cycle of learning. In assimilation, what is perceived in the outside world is incorporated into the internal world, without changing the structure of that internal world. The internal world has to accommodate itself to the evidence with which it is confronted and thus adapt to it, which can be a more difficult and painful process. This process can also be applied to collectives, and attempts have been made to do this, for example, by Nonaka and Takuchi (1995), and Yolles (2006).

5. Knowledge Cybernetics

Operative intelligence is a condition that depends on the interaction between thinking and doing in overcoming a testing environment. However the believing/ knowledge domain is an enabler for the development of durable survival over the longer term. In Figure 4 we show the embedded model as a set of symbolic relationship between these ontologically distinct domains of Being: believing/ knowing, thinking/ feeling and behaving/ doing (or action). To highlight the hierarchical nature of the model we say that there is a lateral relationship between thinking and feeling, while the relationship between durable survival and successful functioning is transitive and drives system viability.

7

Figure 4: Ontological notion of survival through operative intelligence against a potentially hostile environment

KC is conceptualised in terms of social dynamics based on knowledge and knowledge processes, and recognises the importance of communications and control. It involves feedback and feed-forward that enables, for instance, thinking to be turned into behaviour in a way that can be controlled and evaluated, and knowledge to underpin this relationship. It is concerned with social collectives that have both a social and cultural dimension. It is interested in any autonomous system that is viable and therefore has a capacity to durably survive, a consequence of what we call operative intelligence. Following Piaget, we assign two aspects to this: operative and figurative intelligence. Operative intelligence is said by Piaget to be responsible for the representation and manipulation of the transformational aspects of reality, and as such it may be constituted in terms of operative processes that enable an organisation to maintain stable operations. Figurative intelligence is constituted as a means of mental representation for the states that intervene between transformations. It would therefore be expected to have both informational and knowledge attributes. For our purposes, it is useful to identify two attributes of figurative intelligence: figurative imagery in which information rich constructs are reflections of operative intelligence, and figurative knowledge in which thematic patterns of knowledge are constructed to provide meaning. This representation is illustrated in Figure 5.

Here, the hierarchical distinction that arises from the relationship between viability and operative intelligence enables us to explore both first order and second order effects. There is an intimate connection between thinking and behaving that is direct and called as a first order effect that involves a network of operative processes. While behaving is ultimately a function of empirical experience, thinking is associated with the mental images that are created through empirical experiences. However, there is a second order effect that arises from the thematic assembles of belief/knowledge that we have called figurative knowledge. Interestingly, this model of intelligence can be related directly to Beer’s (1979) Viable System Model that has been used to diagnose organisational pathologies.

While the natures of the three attributes are all very different, they have (epistemological) channels between them that define their mutual relationship in the autonomous Being (Figure 5). The relationship between this autonomous system and the task rich environment is that the system affects the environment while that interaction determines the viability of the system.

The representation of the system can be formalised as in Figure 6, called the Social Viable System (SVS) model, which arises from the level theory of autonomous social collectives. The model is cybernetic in nature, thereby centring on communications and control between the different levels. It is also context sensitive so that the nature of the levels can change given the right conditions.

8

Figure 5: Piaget related relationships between three types of reality showing channels of epistemological migrations

Figure 6: Social Viable Systems (SVS) model based on Schwarzian model of Autonomous Viable Systems, where autonomy is a function of both autogenesis and autopoiesis

The basis of this SVS ontology was developed from Schwarz (1994) and Yolles (1999). The three domains constitute distinct modes of being: measurable energetic phenomenal behaviour, information rich images or systems of thought, and knowledge related existence that is expressed through patterns of meaning. The term existential is taken directly from Schwarz’s (1994 and 1997) usage; the term noumenal is taken from the positivist work of Kant (e.g., see Weed, 2002), and though we also refer to the sphere of mind and thinking as did he, our approach is constructivist; and the term phenomenal has been adopted because of intended consistency with the principles of phenomenology as founded by Husserl (1950) (deriving from his 1882 doctoral thesis; also see Osborn, 1934 and after him Heidegger, 1927).

The three domains of SVS are analytically distinct classifications of being, and they each have properties that are manifestations of knowledge. The phenomenal domain has social interests adapted from Habermas’s (1971) in a way explained in Yolles and Guo (2003). The other domain properties arise as an extension of this, are listed in Table 2.

There is an implicit linkage between the domains that has been explored by Yolles (2006) using notions of relevance, as originally proposed by Schutz and Luckman (1975). The existential domain has thematic relevance that determines the constituents of an experience; the noumenal or virtual domain creates direction through the selection of relevant aspects of a stock of knowledge to formulate a system of thought, and it could be made more complex by involving feeling; and the phenomenal is associated with through and in particular action. The notions of conscious,

9

subconscious and unconscious derive from Freudian psychology, are connected to the ideas of Wollheim’s (1999), and also related to the ideas of organisational psychology as promoted, for instance, by Kets de Vries (1991) resulting in a psychology of the collective.

In essence the domain properties of Table 2 demonstrate the nature of the connection between culture and behaviour is evident. The nature of the cultural disposition is better explained through table 3.

Sociality

CognitiveProperties

Kinematics(through social motion)

Direction(determining social trajectory)

Possibilities/potential(through variety development)

Cognitive interests

Technical Practical Critical Deconstraining

Phenomenal (conscious)

domain

ActivitiesShen energy

Work. This enables people to achieve goals and generate material well-being. It involves technical ability to undertake action in the environment, and the ability to make prediction and establish control.

Interaction. This requires that people as individuals and groups in a social system to gain and develop the possibilities of an understanding of each others' subjective views. It is consistent with a practical interest in mutual understanding that can address disagreements, which can be a threat to the social form of life.

Degree of emancipation. For organisational viability, the realising of individual potential is most effective when people: (i) liberate themselves from the constraints imposed by power structures (ii) learn through precipitation in social and political processes to control their own destinies.

Cognitive purposes

Cybernetical Rational/Appreciative Ideological/Moral

Noumenal (subconscious)

domain

OrganisingInformationChi energy

Intention. Within the governance of social communities this occurs through the creation and pursuit of goals and aims that may change over time, and enables people through control and communications processes to redirect their futures.

Formative organising. Within governance enables missions, goals, and aims to be defined and approached through planning. It may involve logical, and/or relational abilities to organise thought and action and thus to define sets of possible systematic, systemic and behaviour possibilities. It can also involve the (appreciative) use of tacit standards by which experience can be ordered and valued, and may involve reflection.

Manner of thinking. Within governance of social communities an intellectual framework occurs through which policy makers observe and interpret reality. This has an aesthetical or politically correct ethical positioning. It provides an image of the future that enables action through politically correct strategic policy. It gives a politically correct view of stages of historical development, in respect of interaction with the external environment.

Cognitive influences

Socio Base Politico

Creating cultural disposition

Exustential (unconscious)

domain

WorldviewsKnowledgeJing energy

Formation. Enables individuals/groups in a social community to be influenced by knowledge that relates to its social environment. It affects social structures and processes that define the social forms that are related to community intentions and behaviours.

Belief. Influences occur from knowledge that derives from the cognitive organisation (the set of beliefs, attitudes, values) of other worldviews. It ultimately determines how those in social communities interact, and it influences their understanding of formative organising. Its consequences impact of the formation of social norms.

Freedom. Influences occur from knowledge that affect social community polity, determined in part, by how participants think about the constraints on group and individual freedoms; and in connection with this, to organise and behave. It ultimately has impact on unitary and plural ideology and morality, and the degree of organisational emancipation.

10

Table 2: Domain cognitive properties that determine Social Orientation (sociality)developed from Habermas’s Knowledge Constitutive Interests

Cultural type

Nature

SocioComposed of the belief system (beliefs, attitudes and values in relationship) embedded in behavioural norms relating to social structure and behaviour. Associated with meanings of social symbols through which explicit and implicit patterns of behaviour are acquired and transmitted. Supports myth that gives both individual and group significance to existences enabling sense to be made of perceived reality. Provides a basis for the development of intention that enables worldview holders to define and pursue goals through a cybernetic cognitive purpose. Through a practical cognitive purpose, work enables the achievement of these goals. This culture can be associated with executor knowledge, which supports the ability of people as individuals or groups to carry out or perform activities in a given situation.

BaseIncludes the nature of meaning and relates to wisdom. In terms of knowledge, base culture involves metaknowledge or knowledge about knowledge. It relates to the ability of viewholders to undertake knowledge housekeeping, enables knowledge maintenance, the examination of self-reasoning operations, and an explanation of self-behavioral processes. We may also associate this with identification knowledge – the facts and concepts making up the knowledge domain. It is meataknowledge that also facilitates our rationality and appreciation, and to establish practical interactive relationships that forms the core of our social structures.

PoliticoIt is learned behaviour, implying that processes of socialisation involving the creation of values, attitudes and beliefs influence a political positioning. Political culture may ultimately be seen to be responsible for the development of ideology and ethics, and critical deconstraining. It can also be associated with an understanding of elaboration knowledge – the relationships between the individual knowledge components and the way they are organised that relates to the creation of polity.

Table 3: Types of Culture

Here, the nature of political influences is that it affects the political culture of a viable organization. Referring to political culture, Rosenbaum (1972, p13) notes the maxim that it is "learned behaviour", implying that processes of socialisation involving the creation of values, attitudes and beliefs influence a political positioning. Politico cognitive influences can be connected with political culture, which may ultimately be seen to be responsible for the development of ideology and ethics, and critical deconstraining. It can also be associated with an understanding of what Marshall (1995) calls elaboration knowledge – the relationships between the individual knowledge components and the way they are organised that relates to the creation of polity.

Consistent with the arguments of Williams et al (1993), the cognitive property of social influences may be seen to affect what have called socio-culture. This is composed of the system (beliefs, attitudes and values in relationship) that are embedded in the norms that relate to social structure and its related behaviour. They are defined in terms of a set of meanings that are associated with social symbols through which explicit and implicit patterns of behavior are acquired and transmitted. It also supports myth, defined as narrative patterns that give significance to viewers existence, and that enables them to make sense of their perceived reality (May, 1991).

The notion of narrative is useful here. According to Walter Fisher in his book “The Narrative Paradigm: in the beginning”, the nature of people as narrative beings determines rationality. This occurs through their inherent awareness of narrative probability, what constitutes a coherent story, and their constant habit of testing narrative fidelity - that is whether or not the stories they experience are consistent with their worldview truths. If we can conceive of the possibility of their being some degree of common rationality, then this will derive from what Schutz and Luckmann (1974) refer to as the routinised stock of knowledge that develops within a purposeful environment of communications (called the lifeworld). Within the theory of narrative, the nature of myth can further be explained through symbolic convergence theory, where shared fantasies provide group members with comprehensible forms of explanation for the past, and thinking about the future (Bormann, 1985). These shared fantasies operate as a basis for communal and group consciousness. The notion that there exist shared fantasies is of course consistent with the already considered notion of Ruiz (1997) that awakeness is also a form of dream that operates through conditioning within the worldview. Socio-culture also provides a basis for the

11

development of intention that enables worldview holders to define and pursue goals through a cybernetic cognitive purpose. Through a practical cognitive purpose, work enables the achievement of these goals. Following Marshall (1995), we may associate phenomenal culture with execution knowledge – the conceptual skills and procedures required in executing particular activities or behaviours.

Cognitive influences affect what we shall refer to as base culture that includes the nature of meaning and relates to wisdom. In terms of knowledge, base culture involves metaknowledge or knowledge about knowledge. It relates to the ability of viewholders to undertake knowledge housekeeping, enables knowledge maintenance, the examination of self-reasoning operations, and an explanation of self-behavioral processes. We may also associate this with Marshall’s identification knowledge – the facts and concepts making up the knowledge domain. It is metaknowledge that also facilitates our rationality, and to establish practical interactive relationships that forms the core of our social structures.

Returning now to Figure 6, the Taoist notions of Jing, Chi and Shen have also to be explained. Sunshine and Wang (2003) note three forms of measurable energy. For them, these three energies can be associated with matter, energy, and information. Energy facilitation is an integral part of Taoism, and three ontologically distinct forms of energy can be identified through the ancient idea of “the three treasures”. According to (Liang and Wu, 2001) these treasures are the Jiang-Chi-Shen energies1 that theorize and explain the human physiological system and the fundamentals for all facets of life and its many variations. Jing is the essence of material-life is a coarse physical energy, Chi is an energy that we may see as psycho-physical in nature, and Shen is the spiritual life force energy. As such the Jing, Chi and Shen are inseparably linked with each another. The nature of this relationship is that Jing is manifested as Chi that is in turn manifested as Shen. Shen may also ultimately be manifested as Tao - a process of achieving ever-higher levels of integration. This uses metaphor to represents an intimate relationship that is implied by the ontological differentiation in Figure 6.

The nature of autopoiesis and autogenesis is of particular interest in KC through its SVS model, defining the cybernetic relationships between the levels of Being. Here autopoiesis (originally defined by Maturan, 1975) is a first order cybernetic connection between noumenal activity like thinking that, through a network of principles, can control phenomenal activity like doing. A second order control called autogenesis conditions autopoiesis, and enables autopoiesis to be knowledge. Examples of autopoiesis are political or other operative management processes, and example of autogenesis is strategic management.

Guo (2006) was seeking to explore the values of corporations and how the Chinese state owned commercial banks are able to respond to change. In particular he was interested in examining what was important to the organisation. To do this he formulated a measuring instrument from Table 2, presented here as Table 4 and called a cultural strategic map.

The purpose of the cultural strategic map was to look for indicators of corporate coherence and pathology, though it is likely that some of his work could also be applied to the exploration of the manifestation of corporate culture. It resulted in a measuring instrument of 52 questions that assessed the perceived culture and its manifestations, with 521 corporate employees responding out of a distribution of 800 instruments. Analysis of variance was used to indicate the pathologies within an organisation, and a correlation analysis was used to evaluate organisational coherence.

1 For a definition of these terms see for instance the The Tai Chi Chuan Lun (Discourse) at the website http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/classics_lun_commentary.html, or the the Toowoomba Buddhist Centre, T’ai Chi, http://www.fwbo.org.au/toowoomba/tai_chi_chuan.html, accessed June 2005.

12

Cognitive Properties/Attributes

Inquiry Prior to defining OD Action

Interests Technical (work)

Technical refers to control and prediction. So put the different operations being undertaken by the organisation into classes, and examine them in terms of control and prediction. What classes of operation are under control and how?Are the consequences of this control consistent with the expectation provided by prediction?

Practical (interaction)

What symbols and rituals are being used in operations and through communications?Are the symbols and rituals being harnessed for the change process?What policies are leaders pursuing? Is organisational behaviour consistent with organisational policies?

Critical deconstraining (emancipation)

Are there any direct or indirect rewards for behaviour?During change, how is the organisation disengaging from the present state? Is empowerment provided for the future? Is individual potential encouraged by people: (i) through the liberation of appropriate constraints imposed by power structures, (ii) learning through precipitation in social and political processes to control their own destinies?

Purposes Cybernetic(interaction)

What strategic goals and aims are there, and are they understood and being pursued by all parts of the organisation? Are people communicating about their goals and aims, and are related controls in place?

Rational/ appreciative(organising)

Is there key power group support for change, what is it and how does it work? Are there any objectives/goals for the change? Has a stability processes been developed, will it work, and what is it? Are there any normative unexpressed tacit standards by which experience is ordered and valued? Is corporate reflection sought?

Ideological/moralmanner of thinking)

Is there any ideological (belief system that creates an image for action - planning) dissatisfaction? Is change being mobilising through participation and the formation of a vision/image for the organisation? What is politically correct (providing an adherence to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology; and in general it includes concern over expressions like speech, behaviour, products, advertising, that might be offensive to certain groups through society) for the organisation, and is this being adhered to?

Influences Social(formative)

Is there a universal image of the future that is commonly understood? Is there a common understanding of the cybernetic purposes to enable technical aspects of the organisation? Are objectives and aims commonly understood?

Cultural(belief)

Is there enough common and specialist knowledge about the current state and its future? Are there any predominant myths that will complicate this? What language is used to redefine corporate identity to help direct the organisation?

Politico(freedom)

What are the values held that support the creation of groups, hierarchies, leaders, power positions, and power relationships? Are there any constraints that will affect ideology/ethics?

Table 4: A Strategic Map for Cultures (Guo, 2006)

Yolles (2006) also explores the nature of culture deriving from Table 3, and generates a cultural map as shown in Table 5. It operates through 6 generic characteristics of culture, across four fields of manifestation. The extreme conditions that are defined in this matrix are representative of enantiomer or ying-yang opposites from which measures of a culture can be obtain.

13

Generic Cultural Characteristics

(relating to cultural condition)

Recursive Domain Relevance within Existential DomainPhenomenal Domain

(Implied collective predisposition to Conscious/Ego)

Relating to work, interaction and emancipation

Noumenal domain(Implied collective predisposition

to Subconscious/ Superego)Relating to intention, organizing,

and manner of thinking

Existential Domain(Collective Unconscious)

Relating to knowledge, belief, freedom and emotionStates

(impulses, instincts, perceptions, imaginings, drives and motivations)

Disposition(knowledge, emotion, filter to processes of knowledge migration)

Extreme condition:

Pragmatism (reflective of circumstance) -Fundamentalism (conformity to a fundamental prescription independent of circumstance)

Patterning (persistent curiosity about object world, connected to symmetry, pattern, balance, dynamics of physical relationships) – Dramatizing (commitment to sequences of interpersonal events and communications with dramatic or narrative structures)

Sensatism (locked to phenomena, sense and materially related, may be able to translate the ideas of others materially) – Ideationalism (relating to acquisition or creation of concepts or ideas)

Global Context

Local Contexts

Cultural condition

Work, interaction & emancipation through reflection or commitment to prescription

Intention, manner of thinking & image through persistent curiosity or commitment to narrative

Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion through knowledge intensification or commitment to material phenomenaCultural & individual impulses, drives & motivations

Knowledge & emotions

Respect Hard work/industry, Legitimacy of ascription of roles and fixed resources like social power (and power distance), Heroism

Sincerity, Courtesy Tolerance, Respect for the old

Tradition, Sense of cultural superiority

Honor Obligation to social group (family/ nation), Commitment, Resistance to corruption, Responsibility

Loyalty to superiors Face (protecting, giving, gaining, losing)

Trustworthiness Social justice Filial piety (paternal obligation)

Kinship

Synergy Harmony with others, Consensus/compromise, Avoiding confrontation, Thrift (saving), Non-competition

Persistence/perseveranceTe (virtue, moral standard)Order, Unity with nature

ModerationOpen Mindedness

Repayment of good and bad

Allegiances Solidarity, Governance by leaders (as opposed to law)

Conformity/group orientationCollectivism, Guanxi (personal connection/networking)

Jen ai/Kindness (forgiveness, compassion)Equality

Feeling of belongingLong lasting relationships (as opposed to gains)

Learning Observation or rites/rituals, Baring hardships, Risk

Adaptability, Goal formation, Control development, Uncertainty, ambiguity, curiosity

Personal steadiness and stability, Self-cultivation, Creativity, Variety, Accomplishment, Intellectual pursuits

Knowledge acquisition, Stability, Ambition

Sensibility Li/propriety, Wealth, Pragmatism (to suit a situation), Security

Not guided solely by profit, Having few desires, Contentedness with position in life, People being primarily good

Patience, PrudencePurity/disinterest, Success, Pleasure, Excitement

Abasement/humbleness, Sense of shame, Sense of righteousness/ integrity

Table 5: Cultural Mapping Matrix due to Yolles (2006)

6. Manifestations of Culture

The above study can be compared with that of Hofstede et al (1990). Their intention to undertake an empirical study required a qualitative model around. They found one from the schema of Deal and Kennedy (1982), interested in the collective psychology of corporations. This model postulated a relationship between corporate risk with feedback and reward (Figure 7), and resulted in a cultural typology as shown in Table 6.

14

   Low Risk High Risk

Rapid Feedback/

reward

Work-hard, play-hard culture

Tough-guy machoculture

Slow Feedback/

reward

Process/ bureaucratic culture

Bet-the-companyculture

Figure 7: Schema relating Risk with Feedback/reward in corporate environments (Deal and Kennedy, 1982), and providing a cultural typology.

Type of culture Feature of culture Typical Characteristics of CultureWork-hard, play-hard

cultureRapid feedback/reward and low risk, (e.g., restaurants, software companies)

Stress comes from quantity of work rather than uncertainty. High-speed action leads to high-speed recreation

Tough-guy macho culture

Rapid feedback/reward and high risk (e.g. police, surgeons, sports)

Stress comes from high risk and potential loss/ gain of reward. There is a focus on the present rather than the longer-term future

Process culture Slow feedback/reward and low risk (e.g. banks, insurance companies)

Low stress, plodding work, comfort and security. Stress may come from internal politics and stupidity of the system. Development of bureaucracies and other ways of maintaining the status quo. Focus on security of the past and of the future

Bet-the-company culture

Slow feedback/reward and high risk (e.g. aircraft manufacturers, oil companies)

Stress comes from high risk and delay before knowing if actions have paid off.The long view is taken, though much effort is put into making sure that plans materialise.

Table 5: The Deal and Kennedy (1982) cultural typology

Factor analysis also produced a number of value factors in the Hofstede et al. study, as shown in Table 6. These determine three “need” value factors: the need for security, work centrality, and the need for authority. Indeed, all of these factors are likely to be relatable to the elements of the cultural mapping matrix of Table 4.

The interest of Hofstede et al also led them to identify a number of “practice factors” that connect to Figure 7 (see Table 7). The factors listed in Table 6 have been related to the strategic cultural map of Gou, and it can be seen that the values in relation to the all of the factors can be can be connected to cognitive interests (i.e., technical attributes (work), practical (interaction), and critical deconstraining (emancipation)), but not apparently to purposes or to influences.

Those factors in Table 7 that relate to practices identify enantiomer polar opposites that, within the context of Chinese Taoism, may be referred to as yin and yang. However, like the “value factors” all ultimately relate to interests and hence work, practical and hence interaction, critical deconstraining and hence emancipation in one way or another. They do have some noumenal aspects, but not too many. Noumenal attributes are core to influencing the way behaviour is regulated and manifested.

15

Value Factors Factor CharacteristicsNeed for Security Man dislikes work

Variety and adventure in work unimportant Fringe benefits important Main reason for hierarchical structure is knowing

who has authorityWhen a man’s career demands it, family should

make sacrificesHaving little tension and stress at work importantWould not continue working if didn’t need the

moneyThe successful in life should help the unsuccessful Pursuing own interest is not best contribution to

society Working in well-defined job situation important

Serving your country unimportantWhen people have failed in life it’s not

their faultOpportunity for advancement unimportantOpportunities for training unimportantJob you like is not more important than

careerBeing consulted by boss unimportantLiving in a desirable area unimportantEmployees afraid to disagree with superiorsMost people cannot be trustedDesirable that management authority can be

questioned

Work Centrality Work more important than leisure timeCompetition between employees not harmfulPhysical working conditions unimportantOpportunities for helping others unimportantNo authority crisis in organizationsDoes not prefer a consultative manager

Challenging tasks importantPrestigious company or organization

importantDecisions by individuals better than group

decisionsWorking relationship with boss important

Need for Authority Most organizations better off if conflicts eliminated forever

Own manager autocratic or paternalisticUndesirable that management authority can be

questionedParents should stimulate children to be best in

classEmployee who quietly does duty is asset to

organization

Parents should not be satisfied when children become independent

Staying with one employer is best way for making career

Conflicts with opponents best resolved by compromise

Table 6: Organisational Value Factors and their Characteristics

Enantiomer (polar) Factors CharacteristicsYin Yang

Process-Oriented

Results-Oriented Employee are told when good job is done. Typical member test. Comfortable in unfamiliar situations. Each day brings new challenges. Typical member initiating Informal style of dealing with each other.

Typical member warm. Try to be pioneers. Typical member direct. People put in maximal effort. Mistakes are tolerated. Open to outsiders and newcomers. Managers help good people to advance.

Employee-Oriented

Job-Oriented Important decisions made by individuals. Organization only interested in work people do. Decisions centralized at top. Managers keep good people for own department.

Changes imposed by management decree. Newcomers left to find own way. Management dislikes union members. No special ties with local community. Little concern for personal problems of employees

Parochial Professional People’s private life is their own business. Job competence is only criterion in hiring people.

Think three years ahead or more. Strongly aware of competition. Cooperative and trust between. Departments normal

Open system Closed system Only very special people fit in organization. Our department worst within the organization. Management stingy with small things.

Little attention to physical work environment. Organization and people closed and secretive. New employees need more than a year to feel at home.

Loose Control Tight Control Everybody cost-conscious. Meeting times kept punctually. Typical member well-groomed.

Always speak seriously of organization and job.

Normative Pragmatic Pragmatic, not dogmatic in matters of ethics. Organization contributes little to society.

Major emphasis on meeting customer needs. Results more important than procedures. Never talk about the history of the organization.

Table 7: Organisational Cultural Enantiomers and their Characteristics

16

Relating the Knowledge Cybernetics Schema to the Hofstede Study

There is an immediately apparent connection between Table 5 and the KC model of Table 2 in respect of cybernetical cognitive purposes and the features of a culture. This is clear because there are issues of feedback that relate to control processes, and are cybernetic in nature. The correlation of the cybernetic characteristics with the characteristics of culture provides a potentially useful set of propositions, especially if one is dealing with organisational pathologies and their resolution.

By inspection it can be seen that a number of these factors and their represented characteristics can be mapped onto the strategic cultural map, providing a way of identifying what notions have been left out of the evaluation of the manifestation of culture according to KC.

However, it will be realised from inspection that not all of the attributes of culture listed in the strategic cultural map are available in the Hofstede’ et al study, implying that the KC schema provides a more comprehensive exploration of the manifestations of culture.

Some support for the Deal and Kennedy model is provided by the Guo study in that reward may be seen as a political process that is important for critical deconstraining. However, the nature of what constitutes such reward has not been examined for the organisations examined, and this may vary among the different organisational cultures.

Deal and Kennedy was looking at the relationship between risk and reward, and in terms of the KC study was thus phenomenally centred. It did not set out to explore the noumenal attributes of a corporation that enables corporate political and operative structures and processes, and behaviour to materialise. For instance, while the main study does not explore ideology and ethics, reference does appear in table 7 to ethics. Nor is critical deconstraining considered that in more recent times would be connected with levels of empowerment. The bound for the Hofstede analysis lies in the useful, if limited, Deal and Kennedy model, and while there are clear relationships between this and KC, attempting to explore the relationships would be a distraction that takes the paper away from its intended purpose.

7. Conclusion

The Hofstede et al factor analysis study explores cultural manifestations in corporate culture, and in doing so centres on the Deal and Kennedy model that relates risk with reward. While this model has considerable utility, it does not reflect all of the corporate attributes that have manifestations of culture. For instance ideological attributes can be important in that they condition ethics, and this has not been extracted from the study. The exploration of the manifestations of corporate culture by Hofstede et al has provided a landmark approach, and the Deal and Kennedy model, while very useful, limited the study undertaken. In this paper it has been shown that it should be possible to use a broader model, that arising from knowledge cybernetics, to explore more fully the manifestation of corporate culture.

8. References

Argyris, C., 1976, Single Loop and Double Loop Models in Research on Decision Making, Administrative Science Quarterly, September, vol. 21. p.363-377.

Austin. T.L., 2005, A Comparison of the Cognitive Development of Outcome Based Versus non Outcome Based Education: An Exploration of South African Learners, Doctoral Thesis, Rand Afrikaans University, South Africa. Also see http://etd.uj.ac.za/theses/available/etd-05232006-145736/restricted/Thesis.pdf, accessed April 2007.

Beer, S., 1979, The Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, New York.Boisot, M., Child, J., 1988, From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: explaining China's

emerging economic order, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 600-28.

17

Bond, M. H., 1988, Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55.6, 1009-1015.

Bormann, G., 1985, Symbolic Convergence Theory: a communication formulation, J. of Communication, 35(4, Autumn)128-138.

Briggs Myers, I., 2000, An Introduction to Types: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the Myers-Briggs Types Indicator, CPP, Palo Alto, CA. Revised form the 1998 edition.

Brodbeck FC, Frese,M, Javidan,M, and Kroll, FG (2002) Leadership made in Germany: low on compassion, high on performance Academy of Management Executive 16,1,16-30

Butterfield, F., 1982, China: Alive in the Bitter Sea, Times Books, New York, NY.Chen ZX and Francesco AM (2000) Employee demography, organisational commitment and

turnover intentions in China: do cultural differences matter? Human Relations 53(6) 869-887Clark, P., Staunton, N., 1989, Innovation in Technology and Organisation, Routledge, London.Cocchiarella, N., 1991, Formal Ontology, Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, eds., Smith,

B., Burkhardt, H., Philosophia, pp. 640, Verlag, Munich.Dahl, S., 2004, Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge, Middlesex University

Discussion Paper No. 26, Middlesex University Business School, London, UK. Also see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=658202, accessed November 2005.

Dalmau, T., Dick, B., 1987, Politics, conflict and culture: a journey into complexity.: Interchange, Chapel Hill, Qld. Also see http://www.uq.net.au/~zzbdick/dlitt/DLitt_P23pcc.pdf

Deal, T.E., Kennedy, A.A., 1982, Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Deal, T., Kennedy, A., 1988, Corporate Cultures - The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Penguin Books, London.

Demetriou, A., Doise, W. & Van Lieshout, C.F.M., 1998, Life-span developmental psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York

Dodd, C., 1995, Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, Brown & Benchmark Publishers, Dubuque, IA.

Fan, Y., 2002, A classification of Chinese Culture, Cross Cultural Management, Volume 7, Number 2, pp 3-10.

Fontaine, R., Richardson,S., 2005, Cultural Values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays and Indians Compared, Cross Cultural Management, 12(4)63-77.

Freud, S., 1962, Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, originally published in English in 1926 under the title The Problem of Lay-Analyses, Maerker-Branden, NY.

Funder D., 1997, The Personality Puzzle. Norton, New York.Giglioli, P.P., 1972, Language and Social Context. Penguin Books, Middlesex, UK.Gouveia, V.V., Ros, M., 2002, The Hofstede and Schwartz Models for Classifying Individualsim

at the Cultural Level: their relation to macro-social and macro-economic variables, http://www.cchla.ufpb.br/pospsi/autores/valdiney/the_hofstede_and_ schwartz_ models.htm

Guo, K.J., 2006, Strategy for Organizational Change in State-Owned Commercial Banks in China: A Developing Organizational Development View. Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University.

Hall, E. T., 1984, The dance of life : the other dimension of time. Garden City, N.Y., AnchorHall, W., 1995, Managing Cultures: Making Strategic Relationships Work, John Wiley & Sons,Habermas, J., 1971, Knowledge and Human Interests, Beacon Press, Boston.Habermas, J., 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinamann, London.Heidegger , M., 1927, Sein und Zeit, and also published as Heidegger, M., Stanbaugh, J., Sight

and Time, 1996, State University of New York Press.Hofstede, G., 1980, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,

Sage, Beverly Hills, CAHofstede, G., 1987, The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories, In Dymsza,

Vamberly, International Business Knowledge, Routledge, London, New York, NY.

18

Hofstede, G., Neujen, B., Daval Ohayv, D., Sanders, G., 1990, Measuring Organisational Cultures: A Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2)286-316

Hofstede, G., 1991, “Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind,” McGraw Hill: London.Hofstede, G., 1994, Management scientists are human, Management Science, 40, 1, 4-13.Hofstede, G. 2001, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and

Organisations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.Hofstede, G, 2002, Dimensions do not exist; A reply to Brendan Sweeney Human Relations

55,11, 1355-1361Hofstede, G., 2005, Dimensionalizing Cultures: the Hofstede Model in Context,

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/introduction.htm, accessed Jan. 2007.House R, Javidan,M, Hanges, P and Dorfman P (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit

leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to Project GLOBE Journal of World Business 37,1,3,

House R, Javidan,M, Hanges, P and Dorfman P (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to Project GLOBE Journal of World Business 37,1,3,

Husserl, E., 1950, Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenolgie und phanomenologischen Philosophie, vol.1, in Husserliana, vol. 3. Also see Husserl, 1950-, XIX. 1911: Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft, Logos, vol. 1. English translation by Lauer, Q., 1965, Husserl, Harper and Row, New York

Hutchings K and Murray Australian Expatriates’ experiences in working behind the Bamboo Curtain: an examination of Guanxi in post-Communist China Asian Business Management 1,1-21

Hutchings K and Weir D (2004) Networking in China and Arab nations: lessons for international Managers Presented at British Academy of Management Conference 2004

Jackson, T., 2001 Cultural values and management ethics: a 10 Nation study Human Relations 54(10) 1267-1302

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., 1991, Organisations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organisational Behaviour and Change, Jossey-Bass Inc, USA.

Kluckhohn, C., 1962, Universal categories of culture, in Tax, S., (Ed.), Anthropology Today: Selections (pp. 304-20), University of Chicago Press , Chicago

Kluckhohn, F., Strodbeck, F., 1961, Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Ill., Row Peterson.

Kolb, D.A., 1974. Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Li, P., 1998, Towards a geocentric framework of organisational form: a holistic, dynamic and

paradoxical approach, Organisation Studies, 19, 5, 829-61.Li, J., Lam, K., Fu, P.P., 2000, Family-oriented collectivism and its effects on firm performance:

a comparison between overseas Chinese and Foreign Firms in China, International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Volume Eight, Number Four, 364-379.

Liang, SY., WU, W.C, , 2001, T h e R o o t s o f I l l n e s s P a r t 1 - J i n g , Q i , a n d S h e n , Syl Wushi Newsletter, Vol.1, No. 4, http://www.shouyuliang.com/newsletter/v1n4/v1n4a1.shtml, accessed June 2005.

Liu S., 2003, Cultures within culture: unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state- owned enterprises, Human Relations, 56,4,387-41

Lowe, S., Oswick, C., 1996, Culture: The Invisible Filters, Ch. 6, 90-116 in Gatley, S. Lessem, R. & Altman, Y. (Eds.) Corporate management: A transcultural odyssey, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996

Lundberg, C., 1985, On the feasibility of cultural interventions in organisations, in Frost, P.J. et al, Organisational culture, Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.

May, R., 1991, The Cry for Myth. Souvenir Press (Educational and Academic) Ltd., London McSweeney, B., 2001, The essentials of scholarship: a reply to Geert Hofstede Human Relations

55,11,1363-1372

19

McSweeney, B., 2002, Hofstede’s Model Of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: a Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis, Human Relations, 55(1)89-118. Also see http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc.

Marshall, S.P., 1995, Schemes in Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

Martin, J., 1992, Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives New York: Oxford University Press

Maturana, H.R., 1975, The Organization of the Living: A Theory of the Living Organization, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7: 313-332.

Maturana, H., 1988, Reality: the search for objectivity or the Quest for a compelling argument. Irish J. Psych. 9:25-82.

Mead R., 1994, International Management: cross-cultural dimensions, Blackwell, Oxford.Mingers, J., 1995, Self Producing Systems. Academic Press, Mew York.Mwaura,G., Sutton,J., Roberts, D., 1998, Corporate and national culture - an irreconcilable

dilemma for the hospitality manager? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(6)212-220

Newell, S., 1999, The Transfer of Management Knowledge to China: building learning communities rather than translating western textbooks? Education and Training, 41(6/7)286-293.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York

Osborn, A., 1934, Edmund Husserl and his Logical Investigations, International Press, New York.

Peirce, C.S., 1931-58, Collected Papers vol. I-VIII. (eds.) Hartshorne and Weiss, Harvard University Press, Casmbridge MA.

Piaget, J., 1950, The psychology of intelligence, Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonPye, L., 1992, Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style, Quorum Books, New York, NY.Redding, G., 1998, The changing business scene in Pacific Asia, in McDonald, F. and Thorpe,

R., (eds), Organisational Strategy and Technological Adaptation to Global Change. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business, 22-36.

Rokeach, M., 1968, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: a theory of organisational change, Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

Rosenbaum, W.A., 1972, Political Culture, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London, UKRuiz, M., 1997, The Four Agreements, Amber-Allen Publishing, San Rafael, California, USAScarbrough, H., 1996, Blackboxes, hostages and prisoners, Organisation Studies, 16, 991-1020.Schlevogt, K. A., 2000, Strategies, structures and processes for managing uncertainty and

complexity: worldwide learning from the Chinese organisational model of private enterprises, in Rahim, M. A.; Golembiewski, R. T. and Mackenzie, K. D. (eds) Current Topics in Management, Vol. 5, Stamford, Conn: JAI Press, 305-328

Schwaninger, M., 2001, Intelligent Organisations: An Integrative Framework, Sys. Res. 18, pp.137-158.

Schwartz, S.H., 1990, Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.

Schwartz, S.H., 1994, Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S.C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 85-119), Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.

Schwartz, S.H. & Bardi, A., 2001, Value hierarchies across culture: Taking a similarities perspective, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-90.

Schwarz, E., 1994 (September), A Trandisciplinary Model for the Emergence, Self-organisation and Evolution of Viable Systems. Presented at the International Information, Systems Architecture and Technology, Technical University of Wroclaw, Szklaska Poreba, Polland

Schwarz, E., 1997, Towards a Holistic Cybernetics: From Science through Epistemology to Being, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 4(1)17-50.

Schutz, A., Luckmann, T., 1974, The Structures of the Lifeworld. Heinamann, London.

20

Shaw, S., Meier, J., 1994, Second-generation' MNCs in China, China Business Review, 10-15.Smith,P., 2002, Culture’s consequences: something old and something new Human Relations

55,1,119-135Sorokin, P.A., 1937-1942, Social and Cultural Dynamics, in 4 volumes. Amer. Book. Co. N.Y.Speece, M., 2001, Asian Management Style: an introduction, Journal of Managerial Psychology,

Volume Sixteen, Number Two, 86-96.Spencer-Oatey, H., 2000, Culturally speaking: managing rapport through talk across cultures,

Continuum, London.Sternberg, R.J., 1996, Cognitive psycholog,. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New YorkSunshine B, Wang, Y.H. 2003, Qi, Rui Dan and Self-excitation, Journal of World Science 1, 197

—212, Article No. 20030107, http://www.nobelac.com/science/jws/jws200301/Web/paperforJWS/new333qipaperjws.pdf, accessed June 2005.

Triandis, H.C., Suh, E.M., 2002, Cultural Influences on Personality, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 53:133–60. Also see https://psy-web.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/awei/Lecture%20notes/triandis%20ann%20rev%20psychol%202002.pdf, accessed January 2007.

Trompenaars, F., 1997, Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, McGraw-Hill,

Wang, J., Wang G.G., Ruona W.E.A., Rojewski, J.W.,, 2005, Confucian values and the implications for International HRD Human Resource Development International 8,3,311-326

Weed, L., 2002, Kant's Noumenon and Sunyata, Asian Philosophy, 12(2)77-95, July.Williams, A., Dobson, P., Walters, M., 1993, Organizational Culture: new organizational

approaches. IPM, LondonWilliamson, D., 2002, Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture Human

Relations 55,11,1373-1395Wollheim, R., 1999, On The Emotions, Yale University Press.Yeh R S., 1989, On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values, Asia-Pacific Journal

of Management, Volume 6, (1) 149-60Yolles, M.I., 1999, Management Systems: a viable approach, Financial Times Pitman, London.Yolles, M.I., 2000, From Viable Systems to Surfing the Organisation, Journal of Applied

Systems, 1(1)127-142Yolles, M.I., 2006, Organisations a Complex Systems: an introduction to knowledge cybernetics,

Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT, USA.Yolles, M.I., Guo, K., 2003, Paradigmatic Metamorphosis and Organisational Development, Sys.

Res., 20, 177-199.Yolles, M.I., Iles, P., 2006, Understanding Public-Private Alliances through Knowledge

Cybernetics: ethical frameworks and trust, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, in process.

Yolles, M., 2007, Exploring Cultures through Knowledge Cybernetics, Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management (JCCM) 5, pp. 19-74.

Yolles, M.I, 2007a, Modelling pathologies in social collectives, European J. International Management, 1(1/2)81-103. see http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f987411265121013.pdf

21