Business Culture Dimensions

Business culture, as opposed to national culture, is easier and more accurate to quantify. This is because, unlike countries, most organizations have well-defined goals and priorities. Most of the organization’s operations are structured to fulfill certain goals and standards (Hofstede Insights, 2020). Since identifying a unique culture to a business or institution grew increasingly common, the usage of the word culture in organizational studies is not confined to the national scale. Organizational cultures, on the other hand, are a different kind of

phenomena than national cultures, mostly due to the fact that participation in an association is typically limited and optional, whereas “membership” in a country is everlasting and compulsory. According to Hofstede’s field study, national cultures vary primarily at the level of fundamental beliefs, while corporate cultures vary primarily mostly in terms of more surface traditions such as icons, leaders as well as ceremonies. Business cultures are often portrayed as a question of principles in mainstream management literature (Peters and Waterman, 1984). Controversy exists when such discourse fails to differentiate between the ideals of the pioneers and representatives and those of everyday workers. The icons, heroes, and traditions that comprise the everyday activities of the organization's participants are created by the founders and representatives. Members do, moreover, conform their personal beliefs to the needs of the company to a small degree. Business cultures are very manageable since they are made up of traditions rather than principles, and they can be handled by modifying the practices. An employer cannot alter an employee's principles when they were formed while the employee was an infant. However, an employer may also stimulate dormant qualities that workers were not previously able to display, such as a passion for effort and ingenuity, by allowing previously prohibited activities (Hofstede, 1994).

On the point of confusion elaborates Kalé (2003) while saying that the concept of business culture has been difficult to operationalize despite its importance. Due to the various definitions, he perceives the term as hazy and vague. Reynolds (1986) made a noteworthy effort to define and formulate the many aspects of corporate culture from a wide perspective.

Reynolds (1986) identified 15 facets of business culture based on the assumption that accurate procedures for measuring company culture are desperately required. All dimensions are simply summarized in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Fifteen Dimensions of Organizational Culture (Kalé, 2003)

The Institute for Studies on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC) in the Netherlands conducted a study that was somewhat close to Reynold’s. Unlike the IBM research program, this study concentrated on business cultures rather than national cultures. Some of Reynold’s measurements are almost identical to dimensions discovered in this study, but they are called differently. Responses were gathered in 20 different job companies or sections of companies in the Netherlands and Denmark. All entities investigated ranged from a manufacturing corporation to two local law enforcement departments. Having previously stated, the research discovered major variations in traditions (icons, leaders, ceremonies) and yet minor disparities in beliefs, besides those attributable to simple factors such as race, sex, schooling, and age category.

The majority of the variation in operational processes can be defined using six separate dimensions. These six dimensions may be used to classify corporate cultures as a context, however this study basis of 20 from two countries which seems to be so limited to hold them uniformly accurate (Hofstede, 1994).

The first dimension is known as “Process-oriented versus Results-oriented Cultures,” and it is correlated to such level of cultural uniformity: in results-oriented groups, everyone viewed their activities in roughly the identical manner whereas in process-oriented groups, enormous variations in interpretation across various stages and sections of the group. A culture’s degree of homogeneity is an indicator of its “strength”. The research found that powerful cultures are more results-oriented than poor ones, and likewise (Hofstede, 1994).

The second dimension is referred to as “Job-oriented versus Employee-oriented Cultures,”

and it takes sole accountability for the workers’ productivity; employee-oriented culture claims wide accountability for the quality of its participants. According to the IRIC report, workplace against employee orientation is a social phenomenon rather than a personal preference for a boss. The location of a unit on this scale seems to be primarily determined by historical considerations such as the philosophy of its creator and the occurrence or lack of economic disruptions with collective layoffs in its modern past (Hofstede, 1994).

The third dimension is regarded to as “Professional versus Parochial Cultures,” and it explores how highly educated members often associate mainly with their occupation, while representatives of the latter derive their identification from the association through which they serve. Tönnies proposed the distinction from inner and outer points of view in 1963 and sociology has recognized this as local versus cosmopolitan (Hofstede, 1994).

The fourth dimension is alluded to as “Open System vs Closed System Cultures” (Hofstede, 1994) and it reflects the most prevalent form of direct and indirect contact, as well as the convenience whereby individuals and immigrants are accepted. The fourth dimension represent a unique, formal disparity between people from Denmark and Netherlands.

Organizational transparency appears to be a cultural trait of Danish considerably unlike of Dutch. It demonstrates how corporate cultures embody variations in national cultures (Hofstede, 1994).

The fifth dimension is recognized as “Tightly and Loosely Controlled Cultures,” and it is concerned with the organization's level of certainty and timeliness. This is largely due to the organization’s technology: financial and medical businesses may be required to demonstrate great deal of influence whereas scientific facilities and marketing companies may be expected to display erratic control, yet when using the identical technology, components can vary (Hofstede, 1994).

The sixth and final dimension is “Pragmatic versus Normative Cultures,” which describes the prevailing manner of working well with rest of the planet, particularly with consumers (flexible or rigid). Commodity groups are more probable on the proactive (flexible) end, whereas legal code enforcement groups are more commonly present on the conservative (rigid) end. Such a factor evaluates the extent of consumer focus, a popular topic in organizational studies (Hofstede, 1994).

This approach to cultural concepts sparked fiery discussions and gave many stimuli for reflection on business culture. It also provided the foundation of several publications, for instance Erin Meyer's country tool called “Culture Map”.