Page 543 - Cultures and Organizations

508 Notes

75. Hofstede, 1996a; Culture’s Consequences, 2001, p. 381. In an article published in
2000, Williamson committed himself to the New Institutional Economics, which does
have a place for culture but not necessarily for national constraints on theories.

Chapter 10
1. This case is derived from Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990. The remain-
der of this chapter also draws heavily on this paper.
2. Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982.
3. Peters & Waterman, 1982, pp. 75–76.
4. See, for example, the critiques of Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983, p. 477; Schein, 1985,
p. 315; Weick, 1985, p. 385; and Saffold, 1988.
5. Pagès, Bonetti, de Gaulejac, & Descendre, 1979.
6. This is also noticeable in French organization sociology, such as in the work of
Crozier, 1964, and Crozier & Friedberg, 1977.
7. Soeters, 1986; Lammers, 1988.
8. For example, in Westerlund & Sjöstrand, 1975; March & Olsen, 1976; Broms &
Gahmberg, 1983; Brunsson, 1985.
9. Alvesson, 2002, pp. 38–39.
10. Smircich, 1983.
11. What we call practices can also be labeled conventions, customs, habits, mores,
traditions, or usages. They were recognized as part of culture already by the British
pioneer anthropologist Edward Tylor (1924 [1871]): “Culture is that complex whole
which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities
and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”
12. Inglehart, Basañez, & Moreno, 1998; Halman, 2001; worldvaluessurvey.org.
13. Harzing & Sorge, 2003.
14. Soeters & Schreuder, 1986.
15. Carlzon, 1987.
16. A Hawthorne effect means that employees selected for an experiment are so moti-
vated by their being selected that this alone guarantees the experiment’s success. It is
named after the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Co., in the United States, where
Professor Elton Mayo in the 1920s and 1930s conducted a series of classic experiments
in work organization.

17. In a factor analysis of only these 6 3 18 questions for the twenty units, they
accounted for 86 percent of the variance in mean scores among units.
18. Culture strength was statistically operationalized as the mean standard devia-
tion, across the individuals within a unit, of scores on the eighteen key practices ques-
tions (three per dimension): a low standard deviation meaning a strong culture. Actual
mean standard deviations varied from 0.87 to 1.08, and the Spearman rank order
correlation between these mean standard deviations and the twenty units’ scores on
results orientation was 0.71***.
19. Blake & Mouton, 1964.
20. Merton, 1968 [1949].