>> MIM Speaks
LOCAL VERSION OF CULTURAL CAPITAL
DECEMBER 2, 2001 (P.40) -
THE STAR
One of the most significant dimensions in understanding
globalisation in management studies is the focus on the
culture continuum of universalism and particularism.
The universalist's stand on organisation and management is
that management and best practice can be transferred
anywhere regardless of their cultural orientation.
Ultimately, all cultures will form one gigantic
international work culture, thus making cultural
differences irrelevant.
On the other hand, the particularist respects diversity and
a plurality of ideas, views, technologies and institutions
based on the assumption that there are many distinct ways
to reach a goal. No one culture's way is better than any
other as different cultures have different heritages and
logics that can be equally valid and effective given
different societal contexts.
While the debate on convergence/universalism and
divergence/particularism continues to engulf our thoughts
and actions ' a tentative conclusion can be reached at two
levels:
* THE macro level is more often associated with the
structure and technology of the organisation, its tools and
services; and
* THE micro level looks at the uniqueness of behaviour of
people within organisation.
Perhaps the truth of the debate lies somewhere along a
continuum where any theory related to human behaviour must
be demonstrated to be "fit for use" in more than one single
cultural context if it is to be universally applied. The
more a theory receives cross-cultural confirmation, the
more closely it approximates universal generality. While
organisations may have the same work structures and
business goals, managers across cultures tend to interact
and implement managerial practices differently.
With the current emphasis on diversity management,
particularly in global project teams, there is now a
realisation that while the functions of management are
almost accepted as universal, the way in which the human
element performs and integrates these processes varies
enormously from society to society, from economy to
economy, and from sector to sector.
In fact, management strategies and decisions are often a
reflection of the values of managers who themselves
represent a particular mode of mental programming unique to
their culture of orientation.
For those who are involved in management studies, this
would mean that theories and concepts that are sensitive to
the different power differentials of many diverse groups in
the various global scenarios must be developed.
Different entities, such as nation states, multinational
corporations and the international organisations, have to
approach the global field with different resources (both
economic and cultural) and seek to set different agendas.
As a result, there is no longer a need to fit every nation
state on a development sequence derived from the experience
of the Western world of tradition, modernity and post
modernity.
The value orientations of managerial thinking and behaviour
will now have to be identified and located within the
context of the culture where development is to take place.
After all, a human phenomenon can only be accurately
interpreted when there is an attempt to look for the hidden
and deeper patterns of thinking, feeling and acting in
which people do not readily recognise.
One of the consequences of this line of thinking is to
examine Malaysia's contribution to the field of management
studies and human resource development and then ask the
following questions:
* HOW do we describe our Malaysian management?
* WHAT are the unique and distinctive features of managing
in Malaysia?
* CAN we talk about a recipe for success?
* IS there a particular branding of managerial style that
is typically Malaysian?
* WHAT makes the Malaysian multicultural workplace unique?
* WHAT do we need to make our organisations world class?
Who do we benchmark with?
* HOW different are our Malaysian managers from their
foreign (read Anglo Saxon and Japanese) counterparts?
* WHAT are the values of managers at the Malaysian
workplace?
* HOW are we responding to the forces of globalisation?
Or are we a bit of this and that, like the rojak buah that
is a mixture of ingredients of various shapes, sizes and
tastes!
Can Malaysian trainers and educators take pride and
describe to others the Malaysian way of managing people? If
so, what would be the essential ingredients? Or do we still
refer to ideas and theories in managing people based on
foreign constructs to strengthen our efforts at
organisational transformation, managing change, resolving
conflict, and delivering even customer service?
How many of us still look to our counterparts in the West
to provide answers and recipes that seemingly have all the
magic potions? My hunch is that we have a long way to go to
remove the residual effects of colonialism, which resides
in many disguises and forms.
May the answers to the above questions draw us closer to
evolving our own version of cultural capital. This would
require us to look at the values of our multicultural
workforce as a "tool" to reinforce managerial actions while
liquidating its negative elements considered "traps" and
obstacles to greater efficiency.
It's time we surfaced and put on centre stage those
particular, indigenous and culture specific management
practices that are equally effective and efficient in both
local and global settings.
In the spirit of "Malaysia Boleh," we have to generate our
own unique, distinctive and innovative responses to the new
global work scenarios by capitalising on our inherent
strengths, demonstrating a willingness to learn, reflecting
from our own experience, and accepting the fact that
tension and conflict are inevitable in a context of
globalisation.
All the above have an important bearing on promoting
particularism in management education for managers in
non-western cultures.
Perhaps the time is now ripe for us to take the lead.
|