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 20th
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

1
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).

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.

2
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 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?

Culture

Attitudes Beliefs Values Language

Normative
Cognitive Space
standards
Concepts, knowledge & meaning
to construct behaviour.
Propositional base,
exemplars.
Behaviour (as practice)
& communications

Paradigm

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

3
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 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   (Spencer­Oatey,   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 life­style 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.

4
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 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).

5
 Symbols

Heros 

Rituals

Values Practices

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

Manifestations of culture
Type of Explanation
Manifestation
Practices: Symbols Include words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular
meaning within a culture, and who thus serve as models for behaviour
visible to an Heroes Personifications having highly prized characteristics that serve as
observer, and models for behaviour.
having culturally Rituals Collective activities that are technically superfluous but socially
specific meaning essential within a culture, and are carried out for their own sake
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).

6
 Autonomous system

Viability Operative  
(durable intelligence Environment
survival)

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
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.

7
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.

Viability
Operative
intelligence

     
Believing/ Thinking/ Behaving/ Environment
knowing feeling doing

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

8
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.

Conditions
Operative processes
Towards
viability Affects
 
Believing/ Thinking/ Towards Behaving/
knowing Feeling operative doing
intelligence Environment
Figurative Figurative Empirical
knowledge imagery experience
Develops Requisite
Operative feedback variety

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

Autogenesis
(self-production of Autopoiesis
(self-production through a
principles): e.g.,
network of processes): e.g.,
governance, strategic
operative or political
management
processes

Noumenal domain
Existential domain of Mind (Chi energy) Phenomenal domain of
of Being (Jing energy) Images, systems of Experience (Shen
Culture, worldviews, thought, imagination, energy)
paradigms, understanding rationality & intention Structure, behaviour,
Unconscious Subconscious interaction
Knowledge Information Conscious
  Data
Autogenesis: feedback Autopoiesis: feedback
adjusting the guiding adjusting network of
principles for autopoiesis  processes 

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

9
 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,
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

Cognitive Kinematics Direction Possibilities/potential

Properties (through social motion) (determining social trajectory) (through variety development)
Cognitive  Technical Practical Critical Deconstraining
interests
Work. This enables people  Interaction. This requires that people Degree of emancipation. For 
as individuals and groups in a social
to achieve goals and  organisational viability, the realising of 
system to gain and develop the
Phenomenal  generate material well­ possibilities of an understanding of individual potential is most effective 
(conscious)  being. It involves technical  each others' subjective views. It is when people: (i) liberate themselves 
ability to undertake action in  consistent with a practical interest in from the constraints imposed by power 
domain
mutual understanding that can address
the environment, and the  structures (ii) learn through 
disagreements, which can be a threat
Activities ability to make prediction  to the social form of life. precipitation in social and political 
Shen energy and establish control. processes to control their own destinies.
Cognitive  Cybernetical Rational/Appreciative Ideological/Moral
purposes
Intention. Within the  Formative organising. Within  Manner of thinking. Within governance 
governance of social  governance enables missions, goals,  of social communities  an intellectual 
communities this occurs  and aims to be defined and approached  framework occurs through which policy 
Noumenal  through the creation and  through planning. It may involve  makers observe and interpret reality. 
 (subconscious)  pursuit of goals and aims  logical, and/or relational abilities to  This has an aesthetical or politically 
domain that may change over time,  organise thought and action and thus  correct ethical positioning. It provides 
and enables people through  to define sets of possible systematic,  an image of the future that enables 

10
 Organising control and communications  systemic and behaviour possibilities. It  action through politically correct 
Information processes to redirect their  can also involve the (appreciative) use  strategic policy. It gives a politically 
Chi energy futures. of tacit standards by which experience  correct view of stages of historical 
can be ordered and valued, and may  development, in respect of interaction 
involve reflection. with the external environment. 
Cognitive  Socio Base Politico
influences
Creating cultural  Formation. Enables  Belief. Influences occur from  Freedom. Influences occur from 
disposition individuals/groups in a  knowledge that derives from the  knowledge that affect social community 
social community to be  cognitive organisation (the set of  polity, determined in part, by how 
Exustential  influenced by knowledge  beliefs, attitudes, values) of other  participants think about the constraints 
(unconscious)  that relates to its social  worldviews. It ultimately determines  on group and individual freedoms; and 
environment. It affects social  how those in social communities  in connection with this, to organise and 
domain
structures and processes that  interact, and it influences their  behave. It ultimately has impact on 
define the social forms that  understanding of formative organising.  unitary and plural ideology and 
Worldviews
are related to community  Its consequences impact of the  morality, and the degree of 
Knowledge
intentions and behaviours. formation of social norms. organisational emancipation.
Jing energy

Table 2: Domain cognitive properties that determine Social Orientation (sociality)

developed from Habermas’s Knowledge Constitutive Interests
Cultural Nature
type
Composed of the belief system (beliefs, attitudes and values in relationship) embedded in behavioural norms
Socio 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.
Includes the nature of meaning and relates to wisdom. In terms of knowledge, base culture involves
Base 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.
It is learned behaviour, implying that processes of socialisation involving the creation of values, attitudes and
Politico 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 socio­culture. This is composed of the system 
(beliefs, attitudes and values in relationship) that are embedded in the norms that relate to social 

11
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.   Socio­culture   also   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. 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 self­reasoning operations, and 
an   explanation   of   self­behavioral   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

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
 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.

Cognitive  Inquiry Prior to defining OD Action
Properties/Attributes
Interests Technical   Technical refers to control and prediction. So put the different operations being undertaken 
(work) 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   What symbols and rituals are being used in operations and through communications?
(interaction) Are the symbols and rituals being harnessed for the change process?
What policies are leaders pursuing? 
Is organisational behaviour consistent with organisational policies?
Critical   Are there any direct or indirect rewards for behaviour?
deconstraining  During change, how is the organisation disengaging from the present state? 
(emancipation) 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 What strategic goals and aims are there, and are they understood and being pursued by all 
(interaction) parts of the organisation? 
Are people communicating about their goals and aims, and are related controls in place?

13
 Rational/   Is there key power group support for change, what is it and how does it work? 
appreciative Are there any objectives/goals for the change? 
(organising) 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 Is   there   any   ideological   (belief   system   that   creates   an   image   for   action   ­   planning) 
/moral dissatisfaction? 
manner of  Is change being mobilising through participation and the formation of a vision/image for 
thinking) 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 Is there a universal image of the future that is commonly understood? 
(formative) Is there a common understanding of the cybernetic purposes to enable technical aspects of 
the organisation? 
Are objectives and aims commonly understood?
Cultural Is there enough common and specialist knowledge about the current state and its future? 
(belief) Are there any predominant myths that will complicate this? 
What language is used to redefine corporate identity to help direct the organisation?

Politico What are the values held that support the creation of groups, hierarchies, leaders, power 
(freedom) 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.

Generic Cultural  Recursive Domain Relevance within Existential Domain
Characteristics  Phenomenal Domain Noumenal domain Existential Domain
(relating to cultural  (Implied collective  (Implied collective predisposition  (Collective Unconscious) 
condition) predisposition to  to Subconscious/ Superego) Relating to knowledge, belief, freedom and emotion
Conscious/Ego) Relating to intention, organizing,   States  Disposition
Relating to work, interaction and   and manner of thinking (impulses, instincts,  (knowledge, emotion, filter 
emancipation perceptions, imaginings,  to processes of knowledge 
drives and motivations) migration)
Extreme  Pragmatism (reflective of  Patterning (persistent curiosity 
condition: circumstance) ­Fundamentalism  about object world, connected to  Sensatism (locked to phenomena, sense and materially
symmetry, pattern, balance,  related, may be able to translate the ideas of others
(conformity to a fundamental 
materially) – Ideationalism (relating to acquisition or
prescription independent of  dynamics of physical relationships)  creation of concepts or ideas)
circumstance) – Dramatizing (commitment to 
sequences of interpersonal events 
and communications with dramatic 
or narrative structures)
Global  Local Contexts
Context

14
Cultural  Work, interaction &  Intention, manner of thinking &  Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion through 
condition emancipation through  image through persistent  knowledge intensification or commitment to 
reflection or commitment to  curiosity or commitment to  material phenomena
prescription narrative Cultural & individual  Knowledge & emotions
impulses,  drives & 
motivations
Respect Hard work/industry, Legitimacy   Sincerity, Courtesy Tolerance, Respect for the  Tradition, Sense of 
of ascription of roles and fixed   old cultural superiority
resources like social power (and 
power distance), Heroism
Honor Obligation to social group  Loyalty to superiors  Trustworthiness  Kinship
(family/ nation), Commitment,  Face (protecting, giving, gaining,  Social justice 
Resistance to corruption,  losing) Filial piety (paternal 
Responsibility obligation)
Synergy Harmony with others,  Persistence/perseverance Moderation Repayment of good and 
Consensus/compromise,  Te (virtue, moral standard) Open Mindedness bad
Avoiding confrontation, Thrift  Order, Unity with nature
(saving), Non­competition
Allegiances Solidarity, Governance by  Conformity/group orientation Jen ai/Kindness Feeling of belonging
leaders (as opposed to law) Collectivism, Guanxi (personal  (forgiveness, compassion) Long lasting 
Equality
connection/networking) relationships (as 
opposed to gains)
Learning Observation or rites/rituals,  Adaptability, Goal formation,   Personal steadiness and  Knowledge acquisition, 
Baring hardships, Risk  Control development, Uncertainty,   stability, Self­cultivation,  Stability, Ambition
ambiguity, curiosity Creativity, Variety,  
Accomplishment,  
Intellectual pursuits 
Sensibility Li/propriety, Wealth, Pragmatism  Not guided solely by profit, Having  Patience, Prudence Abasement/humbleness, 
(to suit a situation), Security few desires, Contentedness with  Purity/disinterest, Success,   Sense of shame, Sense 
position in life, People being  Pleasure, Excitement of righteousness/ 
primarily good 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.

Low Risk High Risk

Rapid Work-hard, Tough-guy macho

Feedback/ play-hard culture
reward culture

Slow Process/ Bet-the-

Feedback/ bureaucratic culture company
reward culture

15
 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 Culture

Work-hard, play-hard Rapid feedback/reward and low Stress comes from quantity of work rather
culture risk, (e.g., restaurants, software than uncertainty. High-speed action leads to
companies) high-speed recreation
Tough-guy macho Rapid feedback/reward and high  Stress comes from high risk and potential
culture loss/ gain of reward. There is a focus on the
risk (e.g. police, surgeons, 
present rather than the longer-term future
sports)
Process culture Slow feedback/reward and low Low stress, plodding work, comfort and
risk (e.g. banks, insurance security. Stress may come from internal
companies) 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 Slow feedback/reward and high Stress comes from high risk and delay
culture risk (e.g. aircraft manufacturers, before knowing if actions have paid off.
oil companies) 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.

Value Factors Factor Characteristics

Need for Security Man dislikes work Serving your country unimportant
Variety and adventure in work unimportant When people have failed in life it’s not their
Fringe benefits important fault
Main reason for hierarchical structure is knowing Opportunity for advancement unimportant
who has authority Opportunities for training unimportant
When a man’s career demands it, family should Job you like is not more important than
make sacrifices career
Having little tension and stress at work important Being consulted by boss unimportant
Would not continue working if didn’t need the Living in a desirable area unimportant

16
 money
The successful in life should help the unsuccessful
Pursuing own interest is not best contribution to
society
Working in well-defined job situation important
Work Centrality Work more important than leisure time
Competition between employees not harmful
Physical working conditions unimportant
Opportunities for helping others unimportant
No authority crisis in organizations
Does not prefer a consultative manager
Need for Authority Most organizations better off if conflicts
eliminated forever
Own manager autocratic or paternalistic
Undesirable that management authority can be
questioned
Parents should stimulate children to be best in
class
Employee who quietly does duty is asset to
organization
Table 6: Organisational Value Factors and their Characteristics
Employees afraid to disagree with superiors
Most people cannot be trusted
Desirable that management authority can be
questioned
Challenging tasks important
Prestigious company or organization
important
Decisions by individuals better than group
decisions
Working relationship with boss important
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

Enantiomer (polar) Factors Characteristics

Yin Yang
Process- Results-Oriented Employee are told when good job is
Oriented done. Typical member test.
Comfortable in unfamiliar situations.
Each day brings new challenges.
Typical member initiating Informal
style of dealing with each other.
Employee- Job-Oriented Important decisions made by
Oriented individuals. Organization only
interested in work people do.
Decisions centralized at top.
Managers keep good people for own
department.
Parochial Professional People’s private life is their own
business. Job competence is only
criterion in hiring people.
Open system Closed system Only very special people fit in
organization. Our department worst
within the organization. Management
stingy with small things.
Loose Control Tight Control Everybody cost-conscious. Meeting
times kept punctually. Typical
member well-groomed.
Normative Pragmatic Pragmatic, not dogmatic in matters of
ethics. Organization contributes little
to society.
Table 7: Organisational Cultural Enantiomers and their Characteristics
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.
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
Think three years ahead or more.
Strongly aware of competition.
Cooperative and trust between.
Departments normal
Little attention to physical work
environment. Organization and people
closed and secretive. New employees
need more than a year to feel at home.
Always speak seriously of organization
and job.
Major emphasis on meeting customer
needs. Results more important than
procedures. Never talk about the history
of the organization.

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. 

17
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.363­377.
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/etd­05232006­
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.
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)128­138.

18
Briggs Myers, I., 2000, An Introduction to Types: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the  
Myers­Briggs 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) 869-887
Clark, 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. 
Addison­Wesley, 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 State­Owned 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., Anchor
Hall, 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, CA
Hofstede, G., 1987, The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories, In Dymsza,
Vamberly, International Business Knowledge, Routledge, London, New York, NY.
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.

19
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,
1355-1361
Hofstede, 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
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

20
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, London
Pye, 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, UK
Ruiz, M., 1997, The Four Agreements, Amber­Allen Publishing, San Rafael, California, USA
Scarbrough, 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.
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
55,1,119-135
Sorokin, 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 York

21
Sunshine 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, London
Williamson, D., 2002, Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture Human
Relations 55,11,1373-1395
Wollheim, 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) 149-60
Yolles, 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)127-142
Yolles, 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

22