Page 375 - Cultures and Organizations

340 CULTURES IN ORGANIZATIONS

organizations; but what did they have in mind when making them? Here is
Geert’s list of the paradigms he observed: In the beginning was . . .

In the United States the market

In France the power
In Germany order

In Poland and Russia effi ciency

In the Netherlands consensus
In Scandinavia equality

In Britain systems

In China the family
In Japan Japan

In Paris in 1994, U.S. economist Oliver Williamson (2009 winner of
the Nobel Prize) engaged in a public discussion with two French social
scientists, economist Olivier Favereau and sociologist Emmanuel Lazega.
Williamson defended an “efficiency approach” for studying organizations,

even for the phenomena of power and authority. “I submit that there is less
to power than meets the eye,” he said. Favereau and Lazega criticized Wil-
liamson’s concept of “transaction cost” as being too thin to be the basis of
a general theory of organization; efficiency as being a weak incentive; and

Williamson’s conception of power as too limited. The discussion had been
announced as dealing with a supposed convergence between economics
and sociology, but in fact it dealt with a divergence of national paradigms,
opposing United States (market) to France (power). All the sources Wil-

liamson cited were American; all the sources Favereau and Lazega cited
were French. But neither side seemed to be aware that the other spoke
from a different context, not even that there was such a thing as a national
context from which theories are written and criticized. 75
The lack of universal solutions to management and organization prob-
lems does not mean that countries cannot learn from each other. On the
contrary, looking across the border is one of the most effective ways of get-
ting new ideas for management, organization, or politics. But their export
calls for prudence and judgment. Nationality constrains rationality.