AMERICAN STUDIES
Magdalena Raczyriska-Pustota
Ost, D., S. Crowley, eds. Workers after Workers' States. Labor and Politics in
Postcommunist Eastern Europe. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
2001.
Ost D., M. Weinstein. "Unions against Unions: Toward Hierarchical Management
in Post-Communist Poland." East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 14, No.
1, Winter 1999.
Raczyhska Magdalena. "Blurred Authority or Blurred Identity? Collective Identity
and the Transformation of Employment Relations." Paper presented at the
conference "How Class Works?", Stony Brook University, June 2002 (b).
^ . "0 duchowej arystokracji. Huta Cz^stochowa i Bristol-Myers Squibb:
analiza porownawcza dwoch interwencji konsultanckich. Spo/eczne aspekty
zmiany systemowej w gospodarce. Ed. P. Ruszkowski. Warszawa: Fundacja
Wspierania Wlasnosci Pracowniczej "Zmiany", 1999.
. "Schizofreniczne deja-vu. Dylematy zwi^zkowej tozsamosci." Krytyka
Polityczna nr 2, Winter 2002(a).
Rubinstein; Saul. "The Local Union Revisited: New Voices from the Front Lines."
Industrial Relations, vol. 40, July 2001(a).
. "Unions as Value-Adding Networks: Possibilities for the Future of the U.S.
Unionism." Journal of Labor Research, vol. 22, Issue 3, 2001 (b).
Rubinstein, S., C. Heckscher. "Labor-Management Partnerships: Two Views."
Negotiations and Change: From the Workplace to Society. Eds.T. Kochan,
D. Lipsky. IT Sloan School of Management, Boston, (unpublished manuscript),
2000.
Rubinstein, S., T. Kochan. Learning from Saturn: Possibilities for Corporate
Governance and Employee Relations. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press, 2001.
Ruszkowski, Pawel. "Socjologia praktyczna w programach restrukturyzacyjnych."
Zbiorowe stosunki pracy w Polsce. Obraz zmian. Eds. W. Kozek, J. Kulpinska.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, 1998.
. "Wartosci w organizacji mi^dzykulturowej." Przeglqd Zachodni, Nr 1,
Poznari, 2003.
. "Zwi^zki zawodowe wobec partycypacji pracowniczej." (Unpublished man-
uscript).
Streeck, Wolfgang. "Works Councils in Western Europe: From Consultation to
Participation." Works Councils. Eds. J. Rogers, W. Streeck. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1995.
120
Vol. XXI
Matgorzata Durska
American versus "European" Values?—
Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life
Cross-cultural studies show that national culture is still the main factor
determining human behavior in all aspects of social life, including the business
sphere. It is symptomatic that this conclusion is reached by specialists of various
disciplines, although their backgrounds and assumptions often vary widely.
Sociologists, political scientists, social psychologists, economists and specialists
in management agree that national cultural patterns underlie the majority of
social processes. In short, the business world is by no means free from cultural
preferences and biases.
The research results presented in recent fundamental works in the field of
cultural comparative studies—such as Culture's Consequences by Geert
Hofstede (2001) or Ronald Inglehart's Modernization and Postmodernization
(1997), to mention just these two—indicate clearly that national cultures all over
the world are keeping their distinct character, and that this fact strongly
conditions business behavior. Contrary to the common perception of progressing
uniformity, cultural differences between countries are still very deep, and the
persistence of specific cultural patterns is not fading away. That does not imply,
of course, that nations are monolithic, but rather that differences within them are
much less significant than the differences between countries. The research
results of Hofstede, Inglehart and others point out that factors such as religion,
age, gender or occupation differentiate people to a far lesser extent than does
belonging to a specific national culture. This means that, for instance, an
American Catholic is first an American and only then a Catholic, and that he or
she will have much more in common with an American of a different denomination,
than with, let us say, a Polish Catholic.
Researchers claim that the supposed trend of global unification is being
strongly exaggerated. Actually, there are no indicators that cross-national
differences will be disappearing with time. The impression of progressing global-
ization and unification holds true only for the layer of cultural artifacts, which are
becoming similar as a result of growing wealth. This, however leads to stronger
121
 Malgorzata Durska
individuaiization of behaviors and attitudes, rather than to their homogenization.
The first derivative of this process is something that can be called a global
consumer reaction. People dress in a similar way, eat at McDonald's, watch MTV
or CNN. These are superficial similarities, which do not allow us to draw the
conclusion that people think in the same way, that they perceive and interpret the
world in the same way, or that they hold and are guided by the same values. At
the second phase of this process, after the achievement of a certain consumption
level, consumers' behavior patterns begin to diverge under stronger influence of
specific cultural factors—ones that are not so distinctly related to economic
development.
Still, the prevailing impression is that we live in a unified world. This way of
thinking can be especially misleading in the case of the so called "western"
world. While, in the opinion of the general public, the obviousness of certain
differences between other countries in the world seems to be unquestioned, the
considerable homogeneity level of western culture—meaning western European
and North American—is often taken for granted. The term "western" itself causes
a lot of confusion. Countries like Portugal, Sweden, or the USA are thereby put
into a single category. The Christian world is "western," and so is the civilization
identified either with Christianity or with the western part of European continent.
These connotations serve as strong support for the idea of western uniformity.
Paradoxically, in the past, when the communist bloc still existed, this idea of
uniformity was also enthusiastically promoted by communist leaders. Its purpose
was to build in people's minds a stereotype of a clear division between communism
and capitalism; "good us" and "bad them." Since the West was "them," capitalism
could be easily interpreted as a matter of choice rather than a set of choices.
Needless to say, this way of thinking had also its equivalent on the other side of
iron curtain; a common enemy created a sense of togetherness and similarity.
The consequences of this indoctrination (partly unintended and unconscious)
continue to exert enormous influence on economic activities, and on the way
business is approached. Free market economy was supposed to be a universalistic
answer to all business-related questions. The unexamined assumption that a
monolithic West exists made it possible to ignore any actual differences among
countries. Today, after years of searching for universal formulae of economic
success, and universal management theories and methods, voices demanding
relativistic approach can be heard both from theorists and practitioners of
business.
Michel Albert (1994) introduced the concepts of Alpine, Rhenish and Anglo-
-Saxon capitalism, all of them "practiced" in western Europe. Hofstede (1991,
2001) proved that on the scales of some cultural dimensions, differences
between western countries are as significant as the largest differences in the
world. Inglehart (1997) divided the western world into several cultural clusters,
122
American versus "European" Values?—Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life
which are very distinct in several respects. Yet, although the myth of uniformity
has collapsed, the habit of thinking about a "western" way of doing business still
causes a lot of misunderstandings. The preference that is given to North
American management theories and methods1 is invariably based on the assumption
of western uniformity, and ignores the fact of strong cultural diversity within the
group of countries labeled "western." Certainly, the economic leadership of the
United States has created a demand for American patterns of doing business, but
it is obvious today that universal prescriptions for economic success simply do
not exist. No matter how strongly we insist that economics is a value-free
discipline, it does get stuck in a web of cultural dependencies when in comes to
business practices.
According to the latest results of World Value Survey coordinated by Inglehart
and conducted in more than sixty countries all over the world, as much as 85%
of the variation between countries can be explained by cultural plus economic
factors. Inglehart defined "key cultural dimensions" and built a two dimensional
model of the world (81-98). On one scale, cultural factors are placed ranging from
traditional to secular/rational authority. Upward movement along this scale is
referred to as "modernization." On the other scale, economic factors (measured
by the level of income) are placed ranging from survival to self-expression/well
being. A shift on this scale is called "postmodernization" and indicates that
material goals are being substituted by expressive (self-actualization) goals. The
combination of these two elements determines the position of a specific country
on the map. Generally, all European countries and all English-speaking countries
are located in the upper and upper-right section of the diagram (high on both the
secular/rational authority axis and the survival to self-expression axis), but the
locations of specific countries clearly show a set of clusters.
The differences between clusters are significant. Closest to the upper-right
corner are countries from continental Protestant Europe; Catholic Europe is
closer to the center (a border between traditional and secular/rational authority;
a border between survival and self-expression); countries of the former commu-
nist bloc are located in the upper-left section (secular/rational authority; survival);
finally, English-speaking countries are located in the middle of the right section
(border between traditional and secular/rational authority; high on self-expression
scale). One interesting exception is the United States: on the cultural axis the
USA emerges as much more religious and traditional than other English-speaking
countries. This clearly religion-related division can be misleading: Inglehart
stresses that the position of a given country within a specific cluster is very much
country-specific. Interestingly, although changes are taking place, the dynamics of
1
Yehuda Baruch (2001)shows that the publication acceptance rate of articles by non-North
American scholars in top management journals compared with that of North American scholars
indicates strong under-representation of non-North American authors.
123
 Malgorzata Durska
change does not modify the mutual relation between clusters and the relations
between countries within clusters. The reason why the differences stay intact is
that in most cases change is occurring in a parallel mode: the general trend is
upward movement on the self-expression scale, and movement from traditional
authority values to rational/secular values on the culture scale. Thus, on the
diagram the location of countries moves along the upright diagonal. The only
country that does not follow the general trend of upright movement on the
diagram is the United States. It is a worldwide anomaly: a culture that scores very
high on income and self-expression, yet sticks to traditional and religious values.
Inglehart's results are strongly correlated with Hofstede's findings. In order to
obtain a more detailed picture of cultural differences in business within western
culture, I will rely on four dimensions of Hofstede's model. An analysis of
Hofstede's scores will show how similar or how different the locations of the US
and western European countries are on the scales of individualism, power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity.
Individualism vs. collectivism
This dimension is strongly related to wealth and therefore it is the most
dynamic of the four. Contrary to common opinion, differences relating to the
dimension of individualism within the bloc of western countries can be very
significant. It is worthy of notice that individualism vs. collectivism can be
treated as a counterpart of Inglehart's dimension of survival vs. self expression.
The two common components here are the source of self-identity and income.
Generally, the level of individualism for European countries varies from moderate
to high, but there are two exceptional cases: Portugal and Greece, where collectivist
values clearly dominate. Not surprisingly, it is Americans who hold the top
position in individualism among all other countries. The variations in the level of
individualism have fundamental impact on various aspects of business activities.
For example, in individualistic societies the criteria for recruitment procedures are
based on individual abilities, while in more collectivist societies they are much
more dependent on the affiliation with a specific group. Similarly, the relationship
between the employer and the employee can be treated as a contract or be based
on close personal ties. Depending on culture, task-assignment can be more
effective when directed toward individuals or toward a group of employees. Generally,
management will focus either on individuals or on groups. In individualistic
cultures, the best performing employees will be those who stand out and
challenge others, while collectivist cultures value those whose work benefits other
members of the group. The decision-making process will also vary depending on
level of individualism: decisions will be taken individually, or will always be
consulted with other group members.
124
American versus "European" Values?—Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life
A dimension that is often related to individualism is universalism and its
opposite, i.e. particularism. Some authors identify universalism with individualistic
values, but this generalization can sometimes be misleading. Firstly, there are
countries where strong individualism coexists with particularism. Secondly,
universalism (or particularism) is very rarely a general trait of a society: in most
cases it characterizes only a specific domain of social life. For example, a country
like France can be viewed as predominantly, particularist, but when it comes to
the welfare of la France, or to the question of food, it will present a strongly
universalistic approach (Trompenaars 36-38). This duality requires taking into
consideration both dimensions (individualism and universalism) separately. The
USA is considered to be a strongly universalistic country in all aspects of
business activities. In Europe, the line between a universalistic and a particufarist
approach generally coincides with the division between Protestant and Catholic
countries. With some exceptions mentioned earlier, Catholic cultures tend to be
more particularist, while Protestant cultures are more universalistic.
For universalists the driving force of business activities are rooted in legal
contracts, written rules and general laws, while for particularists it is close
personal relationships between partners that constitute the key source of
meaning and trust in business. A strong belief in universal rules, methods,
formulae, products and ideas on the side of universalists can be contrasted with
a much more "customized" particularist approach. Two statements characterize
very neatly the core differences between these two types of culture. Universalists
will blame particularists: How can you do business with them? They will always
give preference and advantage to their relatives or friends. It is nepotism!
Particularists will blame universalists: How can you do business with them? They
won't even help a friend or a family member!
Power distance
Power distance is defined by Hofstede as "the extent to which the less powerful
members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept
that power is distributed unequally" (1991, 28). Power distance is another
cultural trait that differentiates western countries. If we look at the worldwide
distribution of power distance scores on a scale ranging from 0 to 104, indexes
assigned to western countries vary from 11 for Austria to 68 for France. However,
since all these measures are relative, it is important to notice that, although the
index for France is only slightly above the middle of the scale, at the background
of 53 countries and regions, France is located at 15th highest position, which
makes it a high power distance country. A similar comment applies to Belgium,
Greece, Portugal and Spain. This group of countries is followed by the USA, which
can be considered as a country of moderate power distance, but still significantly
125
 Maigorzata Durska
higher than Scandinavian countries or Holland. Power distance indexes represent
social attitudes toward equality issues, so, not surprisingly, they have a significant
impact on business practices. Assumptions about inherent power distance trigger
or restrain initiative, make employees decisive or vulnerable, determine the
perceptions of roles, structures, due privileges and status. In low power distance
cultures, the relationship between a superior and a subordinate takes the form
of equal partnership. In high power distance cultures it takes the form of unequal
dependence with the boss expecting total compliance from the employee, and the
employee expecting protection and safety from the boss.
Certain popular management techniques that used to be considered universal
will simply not work in high power distance cultures. One useful example is MBO
(Management by Objectives), an American packaged management method
that requires regular consultation between a superior and a subordinate, as
well as a certain level of feedback initiative on the part of the subordinate. An
assumed, expected and accepted status gap makes this kind of contacts
practically impossible in high power distance cultures.
Uncertainty avoidance
This dimension is defined as the extent to which members of a culture
feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede 1991, 113). The
acceptance or avoidance of those uncertain or unknown situations means that
everything that is different, new, or unknown is treated either as dangerous or as
interesting and challenging. In terms of this dimension, the so called "western"
world turns out to be even more diversified. The least uncertainty avoiding
cultures are Danish, Swedish, British and American. Cultures that tend to avoid
uncertainty are Greek, Portuguese, Belgian, Spanish and French.
Obviously, the attitude toward new, unknown and different things has
significant repercussions in the world of business. Members of high uncertainty
avoiding cultures prefer well-defined situations and tasks. A lot of attention is
paid to detailed instructions and written rules. Deviations from those rules,
deviant ideas or behaviors are unwelcome and suppressed. The same applies
to innovations that break or stretch the rules. That is why these cultures are
generally better off with implementations than with innovations. Uncertainty
avoidance leads also to stronger loyalty toward the employer, and longer average
duration of employment. Values that are considered to be important at the work
place are security, precision, punctuality, "technical" expertise and "tangible"
performance. The ideal boss is one who knows all the "right" answers, and takes
it upon himself to control the uncertainties.
By contrast, members of low uncertainty avoiding cultures tend to be positively
motivated and challenged by new, unknown or different solutions and situations.
126
American versus "European" Values?—Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life
Their tolerance for deviant and innovative ideas and behaviors makes them
better at innovations, but at the same time a relaxed and easy-going attitude
toward time, punctuality and precision does not give them much advantage once
the ideas have to be implemented. Although the rules and written regulations are
often limited to those that are absolutely necessary, they are generally more
respected than rules and regulations in high uncertainty avoiding cultures.
When considering uncertainty avoidance, it is useful to take note of another
dimension: specificity vs. diffuseness. This cultural trait is sometimes treated as
a sub-dimension of individualism or uncertainty avoidance, but such an approach
may blur the characteristics of cultures considerably. Definitely, neither identifying
individualism with specificity, nor identifying high uncertainty avoidance with
diffuseness, can be treated as a valid generalization. Specificity vs. diffuseness
is one of five "pattern variables" discussed by Taicott Parsons and Edward Shifs
(77). This particular variable was designed to describe the differences between
those cultures in which relations with others are limited to specific spheres, and
those where the nature of relations has no prior limitations. This distinction
overlaps at least partly with Edward Hall's (1976) division of cultures into low and
high context2 and Kurt Lewin's psychological concept of U-type and G-type
personality (Trompenaars, 73-91). Generally, it can be said that in cultures that
are specific people engage in relations with others only in specific areas of life
and only at single levels of personality, while in cultures that are diffused people
establish their relations in a more holistic manner, which means that they
simultaneously enter all areas of life and all personality levels.
It is useful to recall that Lewin's concept was originally designed to contrast
the American personality type (U-type) with the German personality type (G-type).
Americans are considered to be very specific, low context. European cultures are
generally more diffused, high context, though they vary considerably in the level
of diffuseness. Generally, more diffused cultures are typical of southern Europe,
but Germany and France also belong to the category of high context cultures.
Misunderstandings and cultural clashes between diffused and specific countries
stem, on the one hand, from a very different perception of what is public and
what is personal, and, on the other hand, from a different scope of relations:
limited only to specific spheres in case of specific cultures, or with simultaneous
access to all spheres in case of diffused cultures.
This difference can strongly affect business practices. The perception of many
managerial techniques can change dramatically from low to high context cultures.
An example can be feedback sessions that are very popular in some cultures, but
are perceived as a public admittance of failure in cultures that are diffused.
2
Hall's distinction originally referred to communication, but eventually started to be used
as a wider cultural concept.
127
 Matgorzata Durska
Criticism that is intended to be targeted either at a specific project or at a piece
of work is taken there as an attempt to impair the employee's status and value.
In a diffused culture the statement "This idea is crazy!" sounds like "You are
crazy!". Common-sense advice popular in low context cultures—"Do not mix
business and pleasure"; "Get to the point first"; "Don't take things personally"—
may sound offensive in high context cultures. In specific cultures the spheres
of life are clearly separated, so that authority from one sphere is not passed on
to other spheres. In case of diffused cultures, the situation is opposite: the
authority from one sphere is spread all over other spheres.
Masculinity vs. femininity
This cultural trait refers to differences in social roles of men and women.
In masculine societies these roles are clearly distinct; men are supposed to
be assertive, competitive, tough, with a strong drive for material success. Women
are supposed to be tender, caring, modest and concerned with others. In
feminine societies, social gender roles are less distinct, more likely to overlap.
Both men and women are supposed to be nurturing and focused on the quality of
life. Slogans typical for masculine cultures would be "I live to work" and "big and
fast is beautiful," while in case of feminine cultures people are more likely to
identify with statements like "I work to live" and "small and slow is beautiful."
Among the most masculine cultures are Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland,
Great Britain, Germany, the United States and Greece. The most feminine are
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Moderate femininity is ascribed to
Portugal, Spain and France. In terms of business, it may be generalized that
masculine countries in their approach toward human nature are closer to thinking
in terms of McGregor's Theory X, while feminine culture in terms of Theory Y. As
a consequence, different approaches to business are practiced. In masculine
cultures assertiveness and ego needs dominate. Competitiveness and
aggressiveness are praised (incidentally, English is the only language where
the word "aggressive" has positive connotations). Failures are taken much more
seriously than in feminine cultures because "it is difficult to pretend that you
did not try hard enough." Conflict is perceived as an opportunity rather than
threat. Everybody expects to win, so confrontation of power is a frequent way of
solving problems: "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."
Overestimation rather than underestimation is considered to be a norm in all
aspects of business activities: presenting of results, self-presentation, image
creation etc. In feminine cultures modesty dominates, and this leads to
intentional underestimation.
128
American versus "European" Values?—Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life
Summary
Figure 1. presents the locations of six selected European countries and the
USA on the scales of Hofstede's four basic cultural dimensions. The dispersion
of countries' positions on the scales shows that hardly any cultural trait can be
considered as typically "western" or even west European. An equally marked
diversity can be observed while comparing European cultures against each other
as well as comparing the USA with European countries. The largest differences
are visible on the scales of individualism and uncertainty avoidance, although
the two other dimensions also exhibit a considerable level of differentiation. The
figure shows that actually no such entity as a recognizable, homogeneous
"western business culture" exists. There is also no "European business culture,"
since European countries cannot be treated as a consistent cultural cluster with
distinct cultural traits. What is sometimes referred to as "European business
culture" seems, in fact, so diversified and country specific that the term itself can
be considered as illegitimate. Moreover, in the light of these findings, the often
discussed distinction between American and European values in business turns
out to be purely arbitrary, since differences between the US and other western
European countries are not in any sense consistent and unified. Thus, for any
kind of international cooperation as well as for the appropriate choice of
managerial methods, a reference to "European" or "western" values in business
may not serve here as a reliable guideline.
The description of most evident consequences of such a differentiation for
business approaches and practices was provided above in sections devoted to
specific cultural dimensions. The choice of managerial methods as well as any
form of international cooperation should therefore take into consideration the
country specific cultural traits and adjust to them accordingly.
129
 Matgorzata Durska American versus "European" Values?—Cultural Variation and Its Effects on Business Life

Figure 1. WORKS CITED

Location of six selected European countries and the United States on the Albert, Michel. Kapitalizm kontra kapitalizm. Krakow: Signum, 1994.
scales of four Hofstede's dimensions. Baruch, Yehuda. "Global or North American?" International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management. Vol. 1, Number 1, April 2001, 109-125.
Half, Edward T. Beyond Culture. Garden City: Anchor, 1976.
US GB NL FR GER POR Hofstede, Geert. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. 2nd Ed.,
!ND COLL London: McGraw Hili, 1991.
. Culture's Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations. London: Sage Publications, 2001.
Inglehart, Ronald. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and
Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
LPD HPD Parsons, T. and A. E. Shils. Toward a General Theory of Actions. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1951.
Trompenaars, Fons. Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing, 1993.

LUA HUA

MAS FEM

IND - individualism COLL - collectivism

LPD - low power distance HPD - high power distance
LUA - low uncertainty avoidance HU - high uncertainty avoidance
MAS - masculinity FEM - femininity

US (the United States)

GB (Great Britain)
NL (the Netherlands)
FR (France)
GER (Germany)
GRE (Greece)
POR (Portugal)

130
131