2.

National Culture

It is very difficult to define the culture despite the fact that everybody is familiar with this
concept. Williams is of the view that culture is one of the two or three most complicated words
in English language (1988, p.87). Different scholars conceptualize the concept of culture
differently however a common element of ways of living prevails in each definition. Geertz
conceptualizes it as an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a
system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic from by means of which men
communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about attitudes toward life (1973, p.89).
For Geert Hofstede, who is one of the promising writers of culture, it is the collective
programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
from another (Hofstede, 2001, p.9). Hofstede and Hofstede explain value as a central
component of any culture which is defined as broad tendencies to prefer certain states of
affairs over others (2007, p.411).
Hofstedes work on national culture (Hofstede, 1980, 2001) is known as a significant
breakthrough to understand national culture and its role in development of the organizational
culture, its working practices and processes. Hofstede defines four dimensions of national culture
and categorizes various countries on these five dimensions. These include Power Distance,
Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long term vs.
Short term orientation and Indulgence vs. Restraint (The Hofstede Centre, 2015a, p.1).
However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance are more aligned to the organizational
models perceived by people (Hofstede, 1991) that have impacts on how people perceive
organizations and influence the ways of working in the organizations. Two of the organizational
models are village market and pyramid model. The concept of village market is to identify adhoc solutions for organizational problems whereas the pyramid model suggests finding preferred
solutions for problems such as to focus on authority and to organize/structure the activities
(Hofstede, 1991). The power distance is related to the focus on authority whilst uncertainty
avoidance is related to the organizing/structuring activities. It is argued that the authority is one
of the key elements of management along with the responsibility and accountability and every
manager needs authority to get his/her job done (Robbins and Coulter, 2004). Similarly,

organizing/structuring activities is one of major functions of management along with planning,

leading and controlling and each manager has to perform this function by organizing activities of
his/her functional units (Robbins and Coulter, 2004). Seen the significant role of power distance
and uncertainty avoidance in the organizations, these dimensions of national culture have been
considered in this study in order to explore the effects of national culture on organizational
culture. These dimensions are conceptualized below in detail.
2.1.1 Power Distance
Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of a society accept
and expect that power is distributed unequally (The Hofstede Centre, 2015a, p.1). In such
societies, low power people accept and expect inequalities among social classes, societies do not
take any step to bridge this gap and people do not ask for any justification of such class disparity.
Further, people respect and follow powerful groups of the society without raising any question
and believe it as their obligation. Contrary to that, people in low power distance societies do not
accept class difference and inequalities among low and high class rather, they strive to equalize
the power distribution among different groups of the society. In such culture, people do not
blindly follow their elders, seniors and powerful groups of the society rather raise questions and
challenge such inequalities. Saudi Arabia is ranked as high power distance societies whereas
United Kingdom is ranked as low power distance societies (The Hofstede Center, 2015b).
2.1.2 Uncertainty Avoidance
The uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable
with uncertainty and ambiguity (The Hofstede Centre, 2015a, p.1). The focus point is to the
degree to which the societies deal with the future that is impossible to be known in entirety. The
uncertainly avoidance involves the need of the society members to control the future and make it
according to their own choice or just allow it happen and change their own choice accordingly.
People in high uncertainty avoidance society are characterized by rigid conventions, beliefs and
behaviours and they do not tolerate unconventional ideas and behaviours. They are more likely
to be emotional and they attempt to change the future according to their needs and demands.
They move forward carefully as they focus more on planning the future and implementing rules
and regulations. On the other hand, societies with low uncertainty avoidance are more likely to

have relaxed attitudes wherein practices are given more weight than principles. In such societies,
people are more comfortable, change according to the environment, pragmatic and have higher
tolerance of change. Saudi Arabia is characterized by high uncertainty avoidance whereas United
Kingdom is ranked as low uncertainty avoidance (The Hofstede Center, 2015b).

2.2

Organizational Culture

Since 1980, numerous researchers (e.g. Morgan, 1998, Quinn, 1988, Schein, 1985) raised
questions about the relationship of national culture and organizational culture and they promoted
the difference between the two. Organizational culture is defined by Morgan as patterned
development exhibited in the societal systems of values, beliefs, knowledge, daily basis rituals,
ideas and laws (Morgan, 1998). In the same vein, Schein (2010) views organizational culture as
the combination of shared values, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and norms creating a link
and congruence between employees and organizational systems that inform ways of working and
stimulating employees to work accordingly (Alvesson, 2010, Smircich, 1983). This viewpoint of
culture reflects that people though having various difference share same organizational cultural
values. Other scholars also define organizational culture as viewpoints of firms working
practices that are shared across the organization (Martin and Frost, 2012) and that provide
organizational members with a guideline to be aligned with organizational mission and
objectives (Martin and Siehl, 1983).
In the current study, the model of organizational culture invented by Quinn, (1988) as reflected
in figure 1 has been considered due to its more congruence with organizational practices as well
as its likelihood to be influenced by the national culture. The model comprises of two axes:
Horizontal axis reflects internal and external focus of the organization. Organizational processes,
practices and employees fall in the internal focus (Quinn, 1988). It can be argued that
organization with internal focus has more emphasis on devising organizational processes,
practices and make decisions related to the employees welfare. . Contrary to that, external focus
comprises of organizations relationship with external environment. An organization with
external focus is more concerned to understand the external environment and change itself
according to the external environmental needs and demands.

On the other hand, vertical axis represents control and flexibility: control implies that the
organizations have strict control over the actions of the employees whereas flexibility reflects the
extent of discretion organizations give to its members to make decision (Quinn, 1988).
Organizations with more focus on control seem to be more compliant with existing rules and
regulations and control the behaviours of employees with these standards. Besides, flexible
organizations empower employees for decision making and encourage them to experiment new
ways of working thus leading to innovation and creativity. As far as empirical research in this
area is concerned, Muijen and Koopman (1994) explored the effects of power distance and
uncertainty avoidance on Quinns model of organizational culture. The dimensions of Quinns
organizational culture model are defined in the following sections.
Figure 1: Organizational Culture Model

Source: Quinn (1988)

2.2.1 The Support Orientation
The key concepts fall under this dimension are individual growth, group cohesion, mutual trust,
cooperation and participation (Quinn, 1988). An organization will be ranked high if there is
mutual trust and group cohesion prevailing in the organization and individuals are facilitated

with opportunities of personal growth and participation in decision making (Ergeneli, et al.,
2007). Support orientation encourages informal and verbal communication due to the climate of
trust. Individuals are motivated to share their views, ideas and knowledge about their tasks. In
such culture, decisions are often made through informal communication and contacts while the
employees commitment and attachment to their jobs and the firms holds the core value in
culture of support orientation. Such forms of culture offer great values for the firms in the current
knowledge based economies where the success of the organization largely depends upon the
collaborative climate and people are suggested to work on the core job without being indulged
into unnecessary administrative and formal activities (Jensen, et al., 2007). Various firms such as
HP, Google and many more facilitate their employees with flexible working hours, working from
home as well as recognize them through ensuring their involvement into decision making.
Considering figure 1, flexibility and internal focus promote innovation orientation.
2.2.2 The Innovative Orientation
The support orientation is based upon flexibility and external focus and involves exploration of
the external environment for updated information, risk taking aptitude, competition instead of
collaboration, idea generation, experimentation, anticipation and creativity (Quinn, 1988).
Individuals who are more innovative and expert in problem solving are known as powerful.
Decentralization prevails in such culture wherein employees are empowered to make their own
decisions (Ergeneli, et al., 2007, Perrons and Skyers, 2003). Communication in such culture is
not constrained by hierarchies rather employees can communicate informally in all directions.
The work is mostly done by task forces as employees feel more comfort working in a task force.
Furthermore, Individuals are motivated to learn, create knowledge, develop themselves, and
improve their qualification, knowledge and skills (Muijen and Koopman, 1994). In such culture,
external control is not applicable rather employees themselves control their performance and
work behaviours (Malone and Team, 2013). However, like all other organization, organizations
expect individuals to engage with their respective job as well as play their role to attain
sustainable competitive advantage, achieve organizational growth and maintain consistent
growth.

2.2.3 The Rules Orientation

This orientation is promoted by higher control and internal focus as well as it stresses for
procedural rationality, authority, formalization and division of work (Quinn, 1988). Where
organizations facilitate employees with support and innovativeness, they also have to ensure
whether all people are aligned with the organizational overall objectives and follow the codified
process formulated by the organization to run day to day matters (Dension and Mishra, 199,
Muijen and Koopman, 1994). Contrary to the innovation orientation, here power is attached with
the formal authority while people usually follow written and formal communication. It is not
possible for an organization to rely totally on the support and innovation culture that discourage
formalization and make people independent. However, managers need to follow a balanced
approach wherein the nourishment of learning and knowledge might be ensured without
compromising the basic structure and minimum formalization.
2.2.4 The Goal Orientation
The goal orientation is facilitated by higher control and external focus (Quinn, 1988) while it
includes some fundamental concepts such as management by objectives, rational planning
(short term), goal setting, limited information access (only specific job related), and efficiency
(Muijen and Koopmen, 1994, p.371). Following goal orientation, the ultimate objective is to
materialize the individual, departmental and organizational goals (Gong and Fan, 2006). For this
purpose, managers allocate individual goals, sometime with their involvement in this decision
and sometime unilaterally. Employees often use verbal communication about the ongoing and
future tasks. People are only provided the required information and they do not have access to
the complete database of the organization whereas goals are often short term. The central
philosophy of this dimension is to ensure the achievement of firms goals in a realistic way
considering various conditions of external environment.

2.3

Hypotheses Development

Hofstedes cultural dimensions have long been argued to have significant role in shaping
organizational culture. The study of Muijen and Koopman, (1994), that is conducted in European
context, provides a base to explore the phenomenon of the effects of national culture on

organizational culture in which the effects of two dimensions of national culture i.e. power
distance and uncertainty avoidance on four dimensions of organizational culture i.e. support,
innovation, rules and goals orientations have been measured. The current study extends the same
area of investigation by exploring the complex and context embedded phenomenon of the
relationship between national culture and organizational in different context and with different
methods. It is argued that power distance has significant implications in empowerment (Robert,
et al., 2000) and leadership (Kirkman,et al., 2009). For example, people with high power
distance culture are not likely to be willing to question and challenge the unequal distribution of
power in their society and such people do not want to make their own decisions and do not want
to be empowered rather they rely upon their superiors or powerful groups of the society to make
their decisions (Humborstad, et al., 2008). As an organization is usually made up of the people
from its home country, so these people take their cultural values, norms, ways of working etc.
with them into the organization and practise the same while working on their jobs. Furthermore,
countries with high power distance and uncertainty avoidance usually correspond with the
pyramid model (Hofstede, 1991) that is more aligned and associated with Mintzbergs (1989)
machine bureaucracy. Such cultures are characterized by strict bureaucracy, high formalization,
application of rules and regulations, standardized work flow, less experimentation, less
empowerment and less flexibility and support that further lead to the lower level of innovation
and creativity. Seen in this way, it can be argued that high power distance and high uncertainty
avoidance promote machine bureaucracy that subsequently promote control dimension including
rules and goals orientations while contradict to the support and innovation orientations of the
organization culture.
On the other hand, low power distance and uncertainty avoidance societies usually correspond
with village-market (Hofstede, 1991) and adhocracy (Muijen and Koopman, 1994). Both of these
concepts promote support and innovation orientation because these are characterized by organic
and decentralized structure, wherein people coordinate and devise coordination pattern through
mutual understanding (Mintzberg, 1989). Nazarian, et al., (2013) found empirical support for
positive relationship between overall national culture with adhocracy. In such culture, managers
have to empower employees, encourage them for idea generation, knowledge creation,
acquisition, sharing and application, and experimentation as well as empower them to make

decisions about their work. In such cultures, support and innovation orientations are argued to be
higher whereas rules and goals orientations are likely to be lower.
Furthermore, there is large emotional distance between leaders and their followers in high power
distance societies wherein followers do not possess courage to disagree with their superiors
decisions (Fikret, 2000). The role of external information has been increased in the current
dynamic world and such external information is collected, synthesized and inferred by the lower
level employees. It is very difficult for todays organization to formulate effective strategies
without ensuring the proper participation of such staff. However, if the lower staff members are
not empowered to share their ideas in accordance with market situation and to contradict and
disagree with their bosses on any issue as it seems in high power distance societies, they cannot
supply sophisticated information for strategy formulation or their input would not be given due
weight by top management. Seen in this way, organizational strategies will be flawed.
Thus, it can be argued that in Saudi Arabia which is a high power distance and high uncertainty
avoidance society (Hofstede, 2015) organizations are usually characterized by low
empowerment, decentralization, trust, cooperation, innovation, experimentation, risk taking, idea
generation and alike that are components of support orientation and innovation orientation.
These components are viewed as significant sources of support and innovation orientation that
subsequently contribute towards attaining sustainable competitive advantage and constant
growth in the current knowledge based competitive world (Bartlett, et al., 2013, Goetsch and
Davis, 2014). These organizations are also intolerant of change following the high uncertainty
avoidance whereas the current world is changing frequently that has never been evidenced
before. Thus, these organizations are argued to remain consistent and aligned with their rules and
regulations and strive for planned goals as they do not take much care of flexibility and external
environment hence, such organizations are more likely to be rules and goals oriented instead of
being support and innovation oriented. Seen in this way, it seems that due to high power distance
and high uncertainty avoidance, Saudis organizations are more likely to face many difficulties
for surviving and succeeding in the current globally competitive era and their performance is
argued to be lower.

Opposite to that, in low power distance societies such as United Kingdom, subordinates are more
likely to be much independent and they often disagree with their bosses on policy issues as well
as there is an environment of interdependence between subordinates and supervisors.
Furthermore, people in such societies want to be empowered that is a fundamental key of
innovation and creativity (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). There is a climate of cooperation,
coordination, support, innovativeness, experimentation, risk taking and idea generation due to
low power distance because people want to work independently on their jobs and they are prone
to make their own decisions rather seeking their supervisor for guidance. In such culture, leaders
usually follow transformational leadership wherein they teach and train their followers, transfer
job related knowledge to them so that they may work independently and explore further for
innovative and novel working processes and practices (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009).
Moreover, United Kingdoms society is characterized by low uncertain avoidance and its
population are argued to be adaptive and people are more likely to tolerate and accept change,
view it as an opportunity of future success and adjust themselves accordingly keeping in mind
the explanation of uncertainty avoidance by Hofstede, (2015). Employees in the organizations of
such national cultures are more prone to understand external environment and remain flexible for
change. Such employees are more likely to experiment new ways of working in order to address
the dynamic environmental needs and demands because they view it as a key source for business
success. Thus, these people are more likely to be support and innovative orientated.

On the other hand, due to small power distance and low uncertainty avoidance cultural
dimensions of United Kingdom, organizational culture is more likely to be less rule oriented and
less goal oriented due to lesser focus on control and internal environment because these
organizations have created a culture of flexibility by reducing the level of formalization. It is
worth mentioning here that though Muijen and Koopman (1994) have reported varying effects of
power distance and uncertainty avoidance on aforementioned four dimensions of organizational
culture in ten countries of Europe.