Page 363 - Cultures and Organizations

328 CULTURES IN ORGANIZATIONS

Herzberg’s conclusion resembles the quote from his compatriot Mary
Parker Follett earlier in this chapter, in which she asserts that people

should “take their orders from the situation.” Culturally, both fit an envi-
ronment in which power distances are small and uncertainty avoidance is
weak: neither dependence on more powerful superiors nor a need for rules
is deemed to be functional or necessary for making people act. The theory

fits the cultures of the upper left-hand corner of Figure 9.1.
In countries occupying the lower left-hand corner of Figure 9.1, con-
trary to Herzberg’s theory, rules as part of what Herzberg called “company
policy and administration” should not be seen only as hygiene. Enforced by
a superego (see Chapter 6; in ordinary language, by a sense of duty), they
can be real motivators in these countries.
In a similar way within countries in the right-hand half of Figure 9.1,
“supervision” should not be seen as a hygienic factor. When power dis-
tances are large, dependence on more powerful people is a basic need that
can be a real motivator. In the lower right-hand corner, incorpor ating most
Latin countries, the motivator could be labeled the boss in the sense of the
formally appointed superior. At INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau
(where Stevens did his analysis reported earlier in this chapter), leaderless
discussion groups composed entirely of French participants were known
to often waste time in internal fights for leadership at the expense of pro-

ductivity, unlike groups of German or British students and also unlike
internationally mixed groups including French participants.

In the upper right-hand corner, where we find Asian and African coun-
tries, the motivator should rather be labeled the master. The master differs
from the boss in that this person’s power is based on tradition and charisma
more than on formal position.
In summary, Herzberg’s theory, as with the other U.S. theories of

motivation considered in previous chapters, is valid only in the cultural
environment in which it was conceived. It is culturally constrained and
reflects the part of the U.S. environment in which its author grew up and

did his research.
Another classic U.S. motivation theory is Douglas McGregor’s dis-
tinction between “Theory X” and “Theory Y.” McGregor’s work carries a
strong humanistic missionary flavor characteristic of the 1950s, when his

ideas were formulated. The main thrust of Theory X is that the average
human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible;
therefore, people must be coerced, punished, and controlled to make them
contribute to organizational objectives. The main thrust of Theory Y is