>> MIM Speaks
EVOLVING OUR OWN CULTURAL CAPITAL
AUGUST 04, 2002 -
THE STAR
By ASMA ABDULLAH and LRONG LIM
IN a recent article entitled "Local version of cultural capital"
(MIM Speaks, Dec 2, 2001), the focus on particularism in
management studies was highlighted. Management ideas and
practices developed by people of a particular culture are not
always applicable across, cultures As they are value-driven and
may not be supported by those from another culture with
differing values. In fact, many scholars have criticised the
bulk of management literature for attempting to enforce a
Western value orientation in many international business
practices.
To throw more light on this line of thinking, a survey was
conducted on the cultural dimensions and their influence on
managerial behaviour. The six continua which have a significant
impact on how Malaysians think, feet and act are as follows:
* Relationship-task-this measures the importance placed on
relationships with employees versus task accomplishments
* Shame-guilt-this verifies if shame which is outer driven or
guilt which is inner driven is the principle that guides
behaviours
* We-I-this measures the preference, for interdependence with
other people
* Religious-secular-this verifies the degree to which
religiosity, as opposed to secularity, is considered, in
managerial issues
* Hierarchy-equality-this gauges the emphasis placed on rank,
status and other ascribed attributes over equality issues
* High context-low context communication-this, measures the
extent to which cultures depend on the context (external
environment, situation, nonverbal signs) to communicate.
Generally, it was found that Malaysians differ significantly
from Anglos, (mainly Americans, British and Canadians) and
Australians. The inter-group results were consistent with
expectations. Compared with the Anglos and Australians,
Malaysians tend to emphasise relationships over tasks, feelings
of shame over feelings of guilt, we over I orientation,
religiosity, over secularity, hierarchy over equality, and
high-context communication over low-context communication. These
inter-group differences were highly pronounced in the
religiosity, relationship, and collectivism dimensions - all
three Malaysian groups differed significantly from the
non-Malaysian groups.
The Malaysian Chinese and Indians, however, differed
significantly from the Anglos but not from the Australians in
the hierarchy dimension. Furthermore, the Chinese and the
Indians did not differ significantly from the, Anglos and the
Australians in the mode of communication.
The Malays on the other hand, differed from the Anglos and the
Australians in both the hierarchy and communication dimensions.
The intra-group analysis revealed that the Anglos and the
Australians did not differ significantly in all the six
dimensions. However, there is one significant difference among
the Malaysian groups. The Chinese and Indian groups were found
to have a much lower emphasis on religiosity than the Malays do.
In summary, the Malays differed most significantly from the
Anglos and the Australians. The Chinese and the Indians differed
from the Anglos and the Australians too, but to a less marked
extent. This is especially clear for the religious dimension,
whereby the Malays differed significantly from not only the
Anglos and the Australians, but also from the Chinese and the
Indians. The Chinese and the Indians have little difference
between themselves, just like the Anglos and the Australians do.
Based on these findings, we can conclude that Western management
theories and practices developed in the Anglo-American context
may, not be suitable for application in the Malaysian
environment without modifications.
Therefore, we have to be aware that the mental modes of
Malaysian managers are different from their counterparts from
another cultural background, especially in cultures which are
less individualistic, shame-driven, hierarchical oriented,
religious-centred, high context, and relationship-focused with
harmony seeking behaviours.
What are some implications to consider in describing managerial
practices, developing leadership skills and managing change in
Malaysian-based organisations?
* Firstly, there is a need for local academia and management
practitioners to decode the Malaysian epistemology in the
context of organisations in the local setting. To substantiate
any form of quantitative research, they may have to also use
"emic" (locally developed) tools of participant observation
study how individual managers articulate their roles, make
decisions, solve problems and relate with others. A more
"particularistic" brand of management "recipe" ala Malaysia
could be include in their teaching and or training agenda.
*Secondly, Malaysian managers could benefit from their own
interpretation of the culture of social organisations, in light
of the advanced made in information technology.
In striving for greater homogeneity of basic human values,
tastes and behaviour what is much needed is a model of local
that has to be reconceptualised and aligned with global values
of speed, flexibility, integration, innovation, customer focus,
and productivity.
In fact, there has to be a clarification of the universal values
like efficiency, humanity and integrity, which are valid in all
cultural settings but articulated in many different ways.
* Finally, Malaysian managers may find it necessary to do their
own "cultural surgery" by discarding behaviours that are an
extreme interpretation of their values if perceived to be
dysfunctional.
The over-emphasis on relationship, shame, practice of not
wanting to give and receive feedback for fear of causing
disharmony, too much emphasis on hierarchical relationships, and
a tendency to wait to be told by superiors, have to be
downplayed. Perhaps the challenge for all of us is to harness
the values of group preference, shame-driven, hierarchical
orientation and a religious outlook to enhance high performance
teamwork, effective task completion, a competitive mindset and a
highly ethical conduct.
Change can be made more meaningful when there is an attempt to
examine our own particular "software programming and operating
system" as we move forward.
It is only when we learn to recognise the roots from which we've
grown that we can anchor our new behaviours to what we most
revere. While our roots cannot be removed or changed, we can
modify the soil, change the fertiliser or climate and even prune
its branches to evolve our own unique cultural capital in
management development.
Our response to particularism must be one that will allow us to
assimilate aspects of globalisation to enrich our way of life
and at the same time be able to preserve our cultures from being
erased by the homogenising forces of global capitalism.
Dr Asma Abdullah is a human resource development specialist in
an American multinational based in Kuala Lumpur and an
author/editor of Understanding the Malaysian Workforce:
Guidelines for Managers Revised edition (published by MIM). Dr
Lrong Lim is Associate Professor, Department of Business
Administration, Kagawa University, Japan.
|