brazilian National Culture Org Culture

http://ccm.sagepub.com

ManagementCross Cultural International Journal of

DOI: 10.1177/1470595806066325 2006; 6; 139 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management

Adriana V. Garibaldi de Hilal Findings from a Multinational Company

Brazilian National Culture, Organizational Culture and Cultural Agreement:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/139 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of Cross Cultural Management Additional services and information for

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/2/139SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 13 articles hosted on the Citations

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at University of Oxford on July 21, 2007 http://ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

During the 1980s and 1990s, culture becamea widely discussed subject in organizations,when western organizational scientists

became interested in the culture of theircountries and on the links between cultureand organizational forms of life (Morgan,

Cultural Perspectives

Brazilian National Culture,Organizational Culture andCultural AgreementFindings from a Multinational Company

Adriana V. Garibaldi de HilalFederal University of Rio de Janeiro COPPEAD (Graduate School of Business), Brazil

ABSTRACT The present study looks into the organizational culture of a Brazilian company,concentrating on its main Brazilian branches as well as on its European, Latin American,Central American, North American and Asian branches, making a total sample of 36 citiesand 1742 respondents. Results indicate the influence of national culture on organizationalculture, as the dimensions found clearly reflect the ambiguity and double-edged ethiccharacteristic of Brazilian culture. This study also shows the importance of hierarchy, and ofrelational networks, which stresses the relevance of the cultural element in organizationalstructure and functioning. In brief, understanding the double-edged ethic that governsBrazilian culture helps us understand apparently different, ambiguous or even contradictorybehaviors reflected in the organizational culture practices of a Brazilian company withinternational operations. Moreover, there is little empirical research that directly deals withwhat combination of factors makes individuals agree or disagree over their culturalviewpoints. Consequently, we consider that this study attempts to deal with that issue as thecultural clusters were obtained using a multivariate approach, using demographic variablesand the identified organizational dimensions. Thus results suggest the organizational contextmay increase or reduce the probability of nationality affecting the cultural agreement ofgroup members.

KEY WORDS cross cultural research cultural agreement Latin American multinational national culture organizational culture

Copyright 2006 SAGE Publicationswww.sagepublications.com

DOI: 10.1177/1470595806066325

CCM International Journal of

Cross CulturalManagement2006 Vol 6(2): 139167


1997) in order to explain the superior perfor-mance of Japanese companies as comparedto North American ones. Some authorsargued that the key to competitiveness lay inthe possibility of organizational culture (OC)change (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi,1981; Pascale, 1981; Sathe, 1985), with thefirst specific studies dating back to the begin-ning of the 1970s (Clark, 1972; Pettigrew,1973) and Schein (1985) formally articulatingthe conceptual framework to analyze andintervene in the culture of organizations.

Culture is treated as a variable in the perspective of popular authors such as Petersand Waterman (1982), Deal and Kennedy(1982), and Schein (1985). On the otherhand, culture is treated as a metaphor in thesymbolic perspective expressed in the work ofanthropologists like Geertz (1993), whosefocus is on meaning. Other debate focuses onthe possibilities or not of measuring OC.

Organizational symbolists advocate thedense description of organizations, involvingqualitative in-depth case studies, as opposedto qualitative but thin descriptions based oninterviews with managers. However, it canbe argued that thick descriptions are difficultto replicate and that the result is highly sub-jective, as ethnographic researchers considerthat objectivity in organizational research is amyth (Ott, 1989).

Within the quantitative approach, on theother hand, the biggest advantage of the useof survey techniques to study OC is the factthat the same methodology can be applied todifferent organizations in the same way, thusproviding a basis for comparisons or general-izations. One of the drawbacks is the fact that there is no protection against over-generalization (Denison, 1984). Those whoprefer qualitative research argue that culturalprocesses are the result of unique social con-structions and that they are, therefore,impossible to measure with quantitative stan-dardized measures (Cooke and Rousseau,1988). Among the intercultural scientists (e.g.Laurent, 1983; Maznevski, 1994; Tromp-

enaars, 1993), Hofstede (1997, 2001) is one ofthe best-known authors. He has an interme-diary position and argues that both method-ological approaches have limitations and, asa consequence, should be seen as comple-mentary.

According to Hofstede (1997), the core ofOC is in the practices shared by its members.Consequently, national cultures would differmainly on their basic values, while OCswould differ more superficially in terms oftheir practices, which would be the visibleparts of culture and could be manageablewithin certain limits.

However, most studies on OC have con-sidered the organization as a whole (Martin,1992). This kind of research emphasizes the existence of a unique general OC andfocuses on harmony and organizational consensus, instead of on conflict and sub-cultural consensus (Martin, 1992). Althoughmost researchers accept the existence oforganizational subcultures (Trice and Beyer,1993), they have emphasized the homogene-ity of culture and its cohesive function insteadof its differentiation potential (Gregory,1983).

Given the perceived need for furtherresearch within organizations that takes intoaccount clusters of ideologies, cultural formsand behaviors that identify groups of peoplewithin organizations (Trice and Beyer, 1993),the present study adopted a sub-cultural perspective, perceiving the organization ascomposed by a multiplicity of different sub-cultures. This perspective emphasizes theexistence of differences, although it does notdeny the possibility of the existence of con-sensus in relation to certain values (Martin,1992). A critical factor that defines the rela-tionship and the existence of sub-cultures ishow much they reflect their own particularvalues. Here, possibilities offer a spectrumthat can include great differences (which canimply deeply rooted conflicts and cultureclashes) as well as groups that share similarvalues and have similar ways of perceiving

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(2)140


and interpreting the organizational contextevents (which would foster inter-group co-operation).

According to Kilduff (1993), organiza-tional members from different nationalitieswill probably tend to develop specific culturalperspectives while they modify and transformthe cultural routines of the organization so as to adapt them to their own cultural bias,possibly using different practical approachesto deal with organizational problems.

Thus the complexity of the internal envi-ronment of organizations with internationaloperations increases the probability that theirculture tends to differentiation; that is, multi-ple systems of meanings, and therefore ofpractices, tend to coexist simultaneously. Thedifferent systems of meanings, or the differentsub-cultures, usually greatly affect the opera-tions of those organizations. Groups with different cultural viewpoints tend to interpretand to respond to the same organizationalevents in different ways accepting, modify-ing, questioning or even ignoring the rulesand procedures that emanate from the dominant culture (Jermier et al., 1991).Additionally, ethnocentrism, which is thetendency to evaluate others according to ourown cultural point of view (Rocha, 1991),increases the probability of misunderstand-ings that can result in undesirable conflictlevels, thus affecting the performance of theorganization (Gregory, 1983).

Moreover, in a relational society such as the Brazilian one, we have to consider the influence of relational networks on theorganizational culture and sub-cultures.Within the relational perspective interactionamong actors can lead to a certain homo-geneity of attitudes and practices, thus signifi-cantly influencing the existence of culturalagreement (Burkhardt, 1994), and thereforehelping to define OC clusters.

Consequently, based on Hofstedes frame-work for OC, the first purpose of this studywas to identify the OC dimensions (i.e. valuesand practices; where practices involve sym-

bols, rituals and heroes) of a Brazilian com-pany, concentrating on its main Brazilianbranches as well as on its European, LatinAmerican, Central American, North Ameri-can and Asian branches. The second purposeof this study was to determine if values andpractices are uniform in the sampled organi-zation or if there are different organizationalculture clusters.

Organizational Culture

Authors such as Schein (1992) and Pettigrew(1985) present OCs as implying shared values, and confusion derives from the factthat such literature does not make a clear dis-tinction between the values of the leaders andthose of the other members of the organiza-tion. Hofstede (1997) defines OC as the collective programming of the mind that dis-tinguishes the members of an organizationfrom those of another, and he argues that the values of the founders and of the mainleaders undoubtedly shape OCs, but theways in which these cultures affect the ordi-nary members of the organization would belimited to shared practices. Thus the valuesof founders and leaders would become thepractices of the other members of the organi-zation. In brief, what an individual has tolearn when he or she joins an organization ismainly a question of practices, as most valuesare developed and learned in the family andat school.

Hofstede et al. (1990) empirically derivedsix independent dimensions that describe thenumerous organizational practices: (1) processoriented versus results oriented; (2) employeeoriented versus job oriented; (3) parochialversus professional; (4) open system versusclosed system; (5) loose control versus tightcontrol; and (6) normative versus pragmatic.These six dimensions are descriptive but notprescriptive: no position in each of the sixdimensions is intrinsically good or bad. Whatis good or bad depends on each case, on whatis desired for the organization and on the

Garibaldi de Hilal: Brazilian Culture and Cultural Agreement 141


strategic options. Moreover, Hofstede pointedout that the OC dimensions he identifiedwould not necessarily apply to any kind oforganization in any country. OCs are gestaltsand their knowledge can only be totallyappreciated by insiders. However, a concep-tual framework allows us to make significantcomparisons between cultures of differentorganizations, or between the sub-cultures ofdifferent parts of the same organization.

Brazilian Culture Overview

Brazil is the only other country in the westernhemisphere that has the continental propor-tions, the regional contrasts and the demo-graphic diversity that can be compared to theUS and Canada.

According to Hess (1995), Brazil, in spiteof its western-like institutions, is a countrywhere western culture has mixed and mingledwith non-western cultures for centuries. Thismixture of western and non-western, as wellas modern and traditional, is what Da Matta(1997a) has called the Brazilian dilemma, orwhat Brazilians call the Brazilian reality. Brazilis a country where institutions operatethrough personal relationships as much asgeneral rules. Diversity is not the best word fordescribing Brazil and Brazilians; mixture isbetter. Brazil is a nation of mixed races (miscegenation), religions (syncretism), andcultures (diasporas, borderlands).

In cultural anthropology and studies ofBrazilian national culture, Da Matta (1997a,b) has influenced a number of scholars (suchas David Hess, 1995; Roberto Kant de Lima,1995; Livia Neves Barbosa, 1995; RosanePrado, 1995; and Martha de Ulhoa Carvalho,1995) with his framework for interpretingBrazilian culture.

Hess (1995) describes Brazil as the productof a particular colonial legacy that includes aclass of wealthy landowners who supported ahighly centralized Portuguese state. In turnthe state imposed a latifundia, or plantationagricultural system in Brazil, where the

plantations were controlled by patriarchswho exercised nearly absolute authority overtheir dominions. According to Buarque deHolanda (1995), the colonial legacy alsoincludes the origins of the traditional LatinAmerican personalism,1 the lack of social cohe-sion and the looseness of the institutions.Additionally, the Tocquevillian legacy ofcomparative analysis influenced a number of20th-century thinkers such as Louis Dumont(1980). Dumonts studies focused on two keydimensions for comparing values and pat-terns of social relations across societies: hier-archy and equality, and holism and individualism.

In the ascribed form of hierarchy used byDumont, ones social position is assigned atbirth or is limited by ones family position. Ina traditional hierarchical society, laws applydifferently to different groups of people. Ofcourse, there are remnants of the ascribedkind of hierarchy even in the most modern ofsocieties, but the legal recognition of suchhierarchy is considered an affront to the fundamental value of equality.

The concepts of holism and individualismare closely related to those of hierarchy andequality. In a hierarchical society everyoneoccupies a definite position, and peoplesidentity is rooted in their association with aparticular position in society.

Da Mattas approach to Brazilian culturedeparts from these key concepts as developedby Dumont. Da Matta uses the term personsto describe the category of identity, in whichone is defined by ones position in the familyor in a hierarchically ordered social group. Incontrast, in an individualistic society identity isrooted in ones own life history and choicesand people are individuals linked by the rulesof the game, which are assumed to applyequally to all (or universally). Although in anindividualistic society people certainly havepersonalistic loyalties, ones identity as an individual rather than as a person tends toprevail. Likewise, in a personalistic or relationalsociety, there are domains of society thatoperate according to individualistic and egal-



itarian principles, but, in general, personalloyalties tend to prevail.

Da Matta argues that Brazil is somewherebetween the two ideal polar extremes (hierar-chical and holistic, and egalitarian and indi-vidualistic). He rejects the model of twoBrazils, in which a traditional culture locatedin the lower classes of the cities and in therural areas is opposed to a modern Brazil inthe upper classes and in the big cities, showinghow in societies like Brazil, Dumonts distinc-tions can be applied simultaneously throughoutthe society. Instead of working with an either ormodel, he opted for a both and model, as bothtendencies are present in any number ofsocial groups, institutions and practices. ThusBrazilians are constantly negotiating betweena modern, egalitarian code and a traditionalone. In some situations, modern practicespredominate. However, frequently, hierar-chical and personalistic/relational practicesencompass modern ones.

Thus Brazil is neither modern nor tradi-tional but both. Da Matta also developed ananalysis of intermediary terms or symbols, asin Brazil there is a tendency to move towarda middle ground of mediation and ambiguity.Those mediating terms become sites for theconflict of values and the encompassment ofthe modern by the traditional.

This seems to apply to Latin Americancountries as a whole, as Latin American history and social structure seem to imply.For example, the injustices of the LatinAmerican authoritarian and hierarchical sys-tem are blunted by the existence of a numberof mediating institutions: extended kin net-works, nepotism, the famous Brazilian jeitinhoor the Argentine gauchada (the art of bendingrules), and all sorts of social practices thatwould appear corrupt in North America andWestern Europe. In short, personal relation-ships form the flip side of official hierarchies.Personalism is more than a cultural system thatgives people a social address in the hierarchi-cal society; it is also a resource that peoplecan use to get around the official rules of the

hierarchical society. Of course, personalismdoes not work the same way for everyone.The networks of the weak are usually smallerand less influential. As a result, although personalism can be used as a resource to sub-vert hierarchy, as an overall system it ends upreproducing the general hierarchical order(Hess, 1995).

Perhaps the most well known of DaMattas studies of mediation is his discussion ofthe street and the home (1997a). The space of thehome is identified with the hierarchical andrelational/personalistic moral world, where-as that of the street is egalitarian and indi-vidualistic. Of course, in Latin America, andespecially in Brazil, the two worlds of homeand street interact considerably. As a socialspace, the home, and institutions modeled onthe home, such as the workplace, are placeswhere relations among family members andservants or among superiors and subordi-nates institute hierarchies of race, class, ageand gender. The street is a different sort ofplace where those hierarchies are suspended.The street is the place where the egalitarianand individualistic principles of the market-place or legal system are in operation. Thehome is the place where people find their identity, while the street is the place of indi-vidual anonymity. In certain situations thehome encompasses the street and all mattersare treated in a personal, familiar domesticway; in others the street encompasses the home:the domain of personal relations is totallysubmersed and the axis of impersonal lawsand rules prevails. There is, therefore, a double-edged ethic that operates simultaneouslyand that determines different behaviors thatapply to the street (where behavior is free ofthe sense of loyalty, free of the meaning of us,ruled by the criteria of individualism, by lawsand by the rules of the market) and to thehome (where behavior is ruled by personalrelations, the sense of loyalty and emotions,by reciprocity and friendship).

In brief, in a dynamic sense, behaviorscontinually oscillate in Brazil in particular



and in Latin America in general: people canexpress apparently different or even contra-dictory opinions and behaviors depending onwhether they position themselves in the streetor in the home.

Methodology

The methodology used in this study wasbased on a research design that combinedquantitative research with a qualitativeexploratory procedure.

The research took place in a Braziliancompany that, owing to issues of confiden-tiality, will be called company XYZ. Themain criterion used in its selection was thefact that it has approximately 81,500employees, thus allowing us to replicate theresearch design used by Hofstede et al. (1990)in their OC study. The field research wasdone in 36 cities, including 17 in Brazil2 aswell as the international branches located inEurope (namely Milan, London, SecuritiesUK (also in London), Lisbon, Madrid, Paris,Frankfurt, Vienna and Amsterdam); in LatinAmerica (namely Buenos Aires, the capitalcity of Argentina, Asuncion and Ciudad delEste both cities located in Paraguay Santiago, the capital city of Chile and LaPaz, the capital city of Bolivia); in Centraland North America (namely Panama, GrandCayman, Miami and New York); and in Asia(namely Tokyo).

The qualitative exploratory researchaimed at collecting information and trying togain some insights about the specific featuresof XYZ in order to adjust the contents of thequestionnaire to the specificities of this orga-nization, and as input for the interpretationof the quantitative data. It consisted of sixone and a half hour in-depth semi-structuredinterviews conducted in Portuguese by theresearcher. For the interviews, six man-agerial level employees were selected using asselection criteria the fact that they werereputed to be communicative and had thenecessary experience and knowledge.

The survey sample was defined in twostages. For the first stage, involving the selec-tion of the cities or units where the data werecollected, we used intentional sampling tocover the five Brazilian geographical areas.The initial intention of using stratified proba-bilistic sampling in the Brazilian units had tobe discarded because the data collection hadto be tailored to the needs of each regionaldivision to cause the minimum interferencein the work flow. Consequently, in each ofthe Brazilian units we selected an intentionalsample of, on average, 74 employees (includ-ing, on average, 37 managerial employeesand 37 non-managerial employees per unit).In the European, Latin American, CentralAmerican, North American and Asian units,as there were fewer employees per functionalcategory, the research took the form of a census and hence included all the managerialand non-managerial employees present atthe time of the survey. The total surveyedsample was of 1968 respondents. After elimi-nating the questionnaires that were annulledor not returned, we were left with a final sample of 1742 respondents (including, onaverage, 33 managerial employees and 33non-managerial employees per Brazilianunit).

The survey consisted of 131 pre-codedquestions3 plus an open question. Questionswere extracted from various publications onHofstedes questionnaire on OC. However,certain questions were developed based onthe results of the qualitative phase of thestudy. The questionnaire also included fivequestions on demographics: sex, age, numberof years working for the company, educa-tional level and nationality. To assure thatthe questionnaire mostly reproduced aninstrument already used by Hofstede et al.(1990), Geert Hofstede was personally con-sulted and directly involved.

The anonymous self-administered ques-tionnaire was prepared in several versions:Portuguese, English, Spanish, Dutch, German,Italian, French and Japanese. Following



Adler (1982) we used back-translation. Afterbeing translated, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of retired XYZemployees to check that the understandingwas the desired one.

Following Robinson (1950) and Shweder(1973), in order to obtain etic or comparableOC dimensions we prepared an ecologicalmatrix, calculating the mean of each item orvariable for each of the 36 units.4 Subse-quently, we applied ecological factor analysis(principal component) with orthogonal vari-max rotation to provide a factor solutionexplaining the maximum share of variance to the fewest number of factors. Moreover,ecological factor analyses are characterizedby flat matrixes (matrixes with fewer casesthan the number of variables).5 However, theoriginal database had in fact 1742 respon-dents, and not just 36 cases, thus being con-sidered adequate using Hofstede et al.s(1990) criterion.

Considering the fact that the question-naire mostly reproduced an instrumentalready used by Hofstede et al. (1990) andthat the small modifications introduced didnot affect its design or any of the variablesheld to be key by Hofstede, we consideredthat the constructs were already validated.Moreover, internal consistency was also veri-fied based on the existing literature (such asBlake and Mouton, 1964; Burns and Stalker,1961; and Peters and Waterman, 1982). Itshould be noticed that the six practicedimensions identified by Hofstede et al.(1990) together explained 73% of the vari-ance.

The first step was to calculate the 131 131 product moment correlation matrix ofthe 20 mean scores for each possible pair ofquestions, verifying that the matrix wasappropriate for multivariate analysis as, onaverage, it presented mean correlationsbetween the variables.

For analytic purposes we followed Hof-stede et al.s (1990) recommendations. First,we divided the questions into three categories

(57 questions on values; 61 on perceivedpractices and typical-member scores; and 13on reasons for promotion and dismissal) andconducted separate factorial analyses foreach category. As the ecological correlationstend to be stronger than individual correla-tions we expected to find high percentages ofexplained variance. In order to avoid givingundue attention to trivial things in ecologicalfactorial analysis, the number of factorsshould be fewer than the number of casesand fewer than what is technically possiblebased on eigenvalues larger than 1, only taking into account variables with loadingshigher than 0.5 or 0.6.

Then the scores of each of the 13 identi-fied dimensions (4 on values, 6 on practicesand 3 on heroes) were put in a 0100 scaleusing the formula: Final score (0,100) = (origi-nal score 50 / 3.090245) + 50 (in order tohave approximately 99.9% of the observa-tions within the interval of the normal curve).Following this scores were ranked to bettervisualize the relative position of each unit inrelation to the others (with 1 indicating thehighest score and 36 the lowest). It should benoticed that three scores presented valuesoutside the 0100 range, and were consid-ered as outliers: namely Amsterdam with ascore for factor V3 (work centrality) of 12;Madrid with a score for factor P3 (indi-vidualistic relational) of 19; and, Frankfurtwith a score for factor V4 (need for survival)of 106, indicating a strong relationshipdirectly or inversely (depending on the valuebeing positive or negative) linked to themeaning of the corresponding factor.

Next we calculated the product-momentcorrelation matrix of the 13 dimensions plusthe 5 demographic variables for the 36 units,in order to identify significant correlations atthe .05 level. In order to identify clusters ofcultural agreement we submitted the 13 OCdimensions plus the 5 demographic variablesfor the 36 units to a hierarchical clusteranalysis, using Ward Method and squareEuclidean distance. From the resulting



dendrogram we selected four clusters. Toexplain the main features of each cluster weused the option reports case summaries (SPSS11.0 program), computing, for each cluster,the minimum, maximum and mean value ofeach of the 13 OC dimensions and of the 5demographic variables.

Finally, in order to verify if the identifiedclusters were in fact significant, we submittedthe original 131 variables (except the demo-graphic variables as they had already beenused in the cluster analysis), to MultipleDiscriminant Analysis MDA stepwiseprocedure and Wilks Lambda Method, inspite of this involving a certain degree of circularity.

Results

The first purpose of the analysis was to identify the OC dimensions (i.e. values andpractices, where practices involve symbols,rituals and heroes). The second purpose ofthis study was to identify clusters of culturalagreement.

Based on the 131 survey pre-coded ques-tions, the 131131 product-moment correla-tion matrix showed that values correlatedwith other values and also with practices; per-ceived practices and typical-member scorescorrelated among each other; and the reasonsfor promotion and dismissal correlatedamong each other, but also with other items.

Before analyzing the value, practice andhero dimensions a word of caution is neces-sary. In the Brazilian branches (PC4 toPC20), almost 100% of the employees areBrazilian and the vast majority are local,from the region where the unit is located.Exceptions are PCs 18 and 19 (namelyCampo Grande and Cuiab in the Center-West region of Brazil) that only have 40%and 50%, respectively, of local employees,the rest belonging to the other Brazilianregions. However, the same situation is not necessarily true of the non-Brazilianbranches, where the local employees reflect

the percentage of employees originally fromthe country where the unit is located. Thusthe composition of local as opposed toBrazilian employees in the non-Brazilianbranches has to be taken into account whenanalyzing the value, practice and herodimensions. Table 1 indicates the approxi-mate percentages of local and Brazilianemployees in each of the non-Brazilianbranches. Moreover, very few of theBrazilian employees belong to headquarters usually only the top managers while allthe others are usually hired locally accordingto local regulations, and are hardly evertransferred between branches.

Value Dimensions

We obtained the following four independentfactors that together explained 52.41% of thevariance:

V1 Need for securityV2 Need for authorityV3 Work centrality (the importance of

work)V4 Need for survival.

Tables 2 to 5 show the variables with load-ings approximately higher than 0.50 or 0.60that were considered to explain each factor.It should be noticed that items with negativeloadings were reworded negatively.

Factor V1 need for security which is acombination of collectivism and elements ofuncertainty avoidance (see items in Table 2)shows that in relational societies, people arepart of personal networks from which theyderive their identity, thus justifying theimportance given to good physical workingconditions, to having training opportunities,to cooperation between co-workers and tohaving a good relationship with the hierar-chical superior. On the other hand, relation-al and hierarchical societies usually justify thefact that it is not considered important foremployees to be consulted by their directsuperior in decisions, or to have the freedomto adopt their own approach to work.




Table 1 Percentage of local and of Brazilian employees per branch

% of local % of Brazilian % of other TotalPC Unit employees employees origin %

1 Santiago 90 10 1002 Asuncion 93 7 1003 Buenos Aires 88 6 6 100

21 Ciudad del Este 93 7 10022 La Paz 90 10 10023 Panama 76 18 6 10024 Grand Cayman 20 40 40 10025 Miami 19 70 11 10026 New York 28 42 30 10027 Tokyo 29 62 9 10028 London 58 35 7 10029 Securities UK 36 55 9 10030 Lisboa 88 12 10031 Madrid 45 55 10032 Paris 64 18 18 10033 Milan 86 14 10034 Frankfurt 75 25 10035 Vienna 50 40 10 10036 Amsterdam 85 15 100

Table 2 V1 Need for security (high)

Code Loading Description

OT9 0.840 Being consulted by direct superior in his or her decisions not importantOT15 0.829 Having an element of adventure and variety in the job not importantOT19 0.809 Having training opportunities importantCG17 0.740 For young people to be critical of their teachers is all rightOT8 0.734 Working with people who cooperate well with one another importantOT7 0.707 Having freedom to adopt your own approach to job not importantOT20 0.693 Having good fringe benefits importantOT11 0.677 Having opportunities for high earnings importantCG10 0.670 The employee that quietly does his or her duty is not one of the greatest assets

of an organizationCG23 0.665 Both parties compromising a bit best resolves conflicts with opponentsCG28 0.648 Large corporation is a more desirable place to work than small companyOT5 0.633 Having good working relationship with superior importantOT4 0.626 Having good physical working conditions importantCG21 0.624 People like workFV6 0.597 Would continue working if did not need the moneyCG22 0.593 Parents satisfied when children become independentCG16 0.568 Good personal relationships not more important than high income



Table 3 V2 Need for authority (high)


FV1 0.723 Does not prefer consultative/participative managerCG19 0.710 Rules should not be brokenCG6 0.689 Decisions by individuals are usually of higher quality than group decisionsOT12 0.664 Serving your country importantFV2 0.660 Own manager autocratic or paternalisticCG9 0.651 Management authority should not be questionedCG15 0.633 It is often necessary to bypass hierarchical linesOT10 0.633 Making contributions to success of organization not importantOT1 0.628 Having sufficient time for personal and family life not importantOT13 0.610 Living in an area desirable to you and family not importantFV4 0.599 Subordinates frequently afraid to express disagreement with superiorsOT2 0.577 Having challenging things to do not importantCG5 0.564 Main reason for having hierarchical structure is that everyone knows who has

authority over whomOT18 0.552 Working in a well defined work situation where requirements are clear is

importantOT6 0.520 Having security of employment important

Table 4 V3 Work centrality (high)


CG8 0.818 Parents should stimulate their children to be best in classCG26 0.679 Having a job you like not more important than having a successful careerCG18 0.638 The individual who pursues his or her own interest makes the best possible con-

tribution to society as a wholeCG20 0.627 When people fail it is often their own faultOT16 0.620 Working in a prestigious and successful company importantCG12 0.599 Competition between employees does not do more harm than goodFV7 0.580 Feel proud working for this organizationOT14 0.525 Having opportunities for advancement to higher level jobs importantOT11 0.520 2nd Having opportunities for higher earnings important

loading

Table 5 V4 Need for survival (high)


CG25 0.618 Even a lousy job is better than no job at allFV5 0.607 Intend to continue working for this organization until retirementCG1 0.557 Most people can be trustedCG27 0.528 Ones job is more important than ones leisure timeCG3 0.516 Most organizations would be better off if conflict could be eliminated foreverCG7 0.509 A good manager should have precise answers to most of the questions that sub-

ordinates may raise about their work


The need for security also justifies the factthat having an element of adventure andvariety in the job is not important, that alarge corporation is a more desirable place towork than a small company, that havinggood fringe benefits and opportunities forhigh earnings is important and that compro-mise is the best way to resolve conflict withopponents.

However, the items that state that theemployees would continue working even ifthey did not need the money, that parentsshould be satisfied when children becomeindependent, that people like work and thatgood personal relationships are not moreimportant than a high income, all typical ofindividualistic and capitalistic modern soci-eties, show an apparent contradiction withthe high need for security. In fact those statements are representative of the traits ofduality and ambiguity usually present inLatin American societies.

In connection with V2 need for author-ity (Table 3) which clearly relates to powerdistance, the following comments are appro-priate.

The fact that it is often necessary tobypass the hierarchical lines fits the famousjeitinho brasileiro or gauchada argentina; that is,the Latin way of bypassing rules in order toget things done, typical of relational societieswhere excessive formalism is bypassed, inpractice, alleviating pressures and emphasiz-ing the importance of personal relationships.That is in apparent conflict with the item thatstates that rules should not be broken, typicalof hierarchical societies. However, thosestatements are representative of the traits ofduality and ambiguity usually present inLatin American societies.

The item that states that making a realcontribution to the organizations success isnot important shows a vision of the organiza-tion as the street in opposition to thehome. According to Da Matta (1997a), welive in a society where there is a permanentstate of confrontation between the public

world of universal laws and the market andthe private universe of the family, relativesand friends. Additionally, in connection withthe preferred and perceived type of manager,which includes the typology of autocratic,paternalistic, consultative and participativemanager (key element of the classical powerdistance dimension) our study indicates aclear preference for the autocratic andpaternalistic types.

However, careful analysis of the scores ofthe 36 units makes us realize that, while thosestatements would be mainly valid for theother Latin American branches (which havethe highest scores and therefore a higher needfor authority), the same does not apply to anyof the Brazilian units, where the scores areconsistently below the midpoint of the scale(50), indicating that both the preferred andperceived managers tend to be consultativeor participative. Moreover, it is worth men-tioning that sometimes the limited experienceof the respondents can influence their percep-tion of the type of manager they in fact have.One also has to consider that managementtraining courses normally glorify consultativeor participative management as being superiorand more modern rather than more auto-cratic or paternalistic management styles, notconsidering the cultural profile of the audi-ence. This could suggest the existence of consultative or participative rituals, without necessarily implying the implementation ofmanagerial models that are actually consulta-tive or participative. From this perspective,consultative or participative managementstyles might be reduced to a ritualistic repre-sentation of participation just because theyare perceived as the politically correct dis-course by the managerial establishment.

The items that state that decisions byindividuals are usually of higher quality thangroup decisions, that management authorityshould not be questioned, that subordinatesare frequently afraid to express disagreementwith their superiors and that the main reasonfor having a hierarchical structure is that



everyone knows who has authority overwhom are typical of societies with high powerdistance, justifying clear authority lines andtraditional hierarchy.

Factor V3 work centrality which clearly relates to masculinity (see items inTable 4), links the importance given to work-

ing in a prestigious company with icons ofmodern capitalistic societies, such as thevalue attributed to competitiveness (parentsshould stimulate their children to try to be thebest in class, competition between employeesis not harmful, the importance attributed toones career, and the fact that peoples failure


Table 6 Value scores and rankings

PC V1 V2 V3 V4 RV1 RV2 RV3 RV4

1 69 88 38 33 3 2 31 342 70 83 53 60 2 3 16 73 75 91 45 42 1 1 26 274 64 45 50 47 7 17 22 195 66 40 55 59 5 26 12 96 61 38 52 48 14 29 20 167 61 30 40 55 12 35 30 128 65 42 32 32 6 21 34 359 61 39 43 41 13 28 29 28

10 60 45 57 40 18 19 10 2911 62 41 54 62 10 23 14 612 60 39 45 47 16 27 27 1813 56 28 48 43 19 36 25 2414 60 37 64 59 17 30 6 815 61 37 60 46 15 31 8 2016 51 40 78 47 20 25 1 1717 63 49 52 46 8 16 18 2118 66 36 53 57 4 32 17 1019 63 41 59 36 9 22 9 3120 61 31 54 43 11 34 13 2521 41 72 67 56 25 5 5 1122 37 53 49 53 27 13 24 1323 36 63 37 42 29 7 32 2624 31 45 44 75 32 18 28 325 43 41 33 106 24 24 33 126 45 70 72 44 22 6 2 2327 15 57 70 51 36 10 3 1428 38 53 63 48 26 12 7 1529 28 56 55 40 33 11 11 3030 32 58 51 35 30 8 21 3331 23 44 49 45 34 20 23 2232 17 35 53 13 35 33 15 3633 32 49 52 64 31 15 19 534 43 51 16 74 23 14 35 435 48 76 68 77 21 4 4 236 36 58 12 35 28 9 36 32

Note: R indicates the ranking of the factor.


is considered their own fault). This symbiosissuggests that the desired values of work andcompetitiveness are inscribed in the relationaluniverse, in permanence and tradition, wherethe prestige of the organization grants pres-tige to its members, being the basis of theiridentification system.

Factor V4 need for survival (Table 5) which contains other elements of uncertaintyavoidance, shows how in relational and traditional societies (where employees intendto continue working for the organizationuntil retirement and where most people canbe trusted), modern capitalistic values areencompassed (namely the item that statesthat ones job is more important than onesleisure time). Moreover, the fact that even alousy job is better than no job at all clearlyindicates the specific difficulties of the labormarket, frequently perceived as permanent.

The scores and rankings of Factors V1 toV4 are in Table 6. In connection with V1 need for security it should be noted that theapparent contradiction between the scores ofAsuncion PC2 and Ciudad del Este PC21 both Paraguayan cities, could beexplained by the fact that Ciudad del Este isa small town on the borders of Paraguay,Brazil and Argentina, with immigrants of different origins, which give the city a pecu-liar profile.

Practice Dimensions

Of the 12 independent factors obtained wedecided to keep the following 6 that togetherexplain 71.25% of the variance:

P1 Employee oriented versus job orientedP2 Results oriented versus process

orientedP3 Isolated versus relationalP4 Egalitarian versus hierarchicalP5 Parochial versus professionalP6 Informal versus formal.

Tables 7 to 12 list the variables with loadingsapproximately higher than 0.50 or 0.60 thatwere considered relevant to explain each

factor. In order to name the six dimensionswe indicated in bold type the four items thatwe considered key to define each dimension.The 24 key items (46) were submitted to anecological factorial analysis of principal com-ponent using varimax rotation and togetherexplained 82.35% of the accumulated vari-ance of the mean scores between units. Thescores and rankings of the different companyunits are shown in Table 13.

Factor P1 employee oriented v job ori-ented (Table 7) shows that the organizationis perceived as interested only in the work ofthe employees and not in their well-beingand, that in general, important decisions aretaken by individuals. It also shows the fasci-nation that Brazilian organizations have forhierarchy and tradition, as indicated by theitems that state that decisions are centralizedat the top and that changes are implementedby management decree.

In such an environment of individuals,impersonal rules substitute for relationships.Thus the fact that the organization does nothave relevant links with the local communityand contributes little to society could beexplained by the historical indifference of theforms of association that imply solidarity, asstated by Buarque de Holanda (1995). Toexemplify, in individualistic societies, such asNorth American society, the concept of com-munity is founded on the equality and homo-geneity of all its members. In Latin Americain contrast, the community is heterogeneous,hierarchical and complementary. Its basicunit is not the individual, but relationshipsand persons, and groups of friends. More-over, when employees become embedded inthe relational networks, the perception of formal hierarchies would decrease, with per-sonal relationships forming the flip-side ofofficial hierarchies.

Factor P2 results oriented v process oriented (Table 8) shows that the majoremphasis is on following organizational pro-cedures correctly, and that following the correct procedures is more important than




Table 7 P1: Employee oriented v job oriented

Code Loading* Description

PP30 0.848 No special ties with local communityPP49 0.841 Pragmatic not dogmatic in matters of ethicsPP26 0.797 Organization contributes little to societyPP43 0.771 Decisions centralized at topPP48 0.725 Changes implemented by management decreePP18 0.725 Job competence is what counts regardless of how it was acquiredPP32 0.718 Managers keep good people for own departmentPP23 0.697 People only told when they have made a mistakePP28 0.648 Organization only interested in work people doCT6 0.580 Typical member sloppyCT3 0.565 Typical member directPP25 0.562 Peoples private life is their own businessPP6 0.550 Important decisions made by individualsPP42 0.526 Little attention to physical work environmentPP53 0.571 2nd Each day is pretty much the same

loading

* Items with negative loadings are reworded negatively.

Table 8 P2: Results oriented v process oriented


PP1 0.808 Major emphasis on correctly following organizational proceduresPP21 0.770 People identify primarily with own branch or locationPP53 0.690 Each day is pretty much the samePP3 0.686 Uncomfortable in unfamiliar situations people avoid taking risksPP14 0.639 Many people wonder about purpose and importance of their workPP11 0.635 Organization and people closed and secretivePP45 0.599 Correct procedures are more important than resultsPP41 0.565 Not aware of competition of other organizationsPP37 0.516 Our branch worst of organizationPP6 0.505 2nd All important decisions taken by individuals

loading


Table 9 P3: Isolated v relational


CT2 0.854 Typical member warmCT7 0.853 Typical member relationalCT4 0.788 Typical member flexibleCT1 0.746 Typical member initiatingPP29 0.708 Newcomers are helped to adapt quickly to job and groupCT5 0.604 Typical member fast



results. This factor also shows that the orga-nization is perceived as a closed system as indicated in the items that state that theorganization and its people are closed andsecretive and that they are not aware of com-petition from other organizations.

Yet, just like in a set of mirrors, thedimensions present their own opposites asshown in Factor P3 isolated v relational(Table 9) where the view of the home, ofthe relational axis is clearly represented.XYZ is an organization that exists in a com-plex system of social relationships, of linksamong its members. In the Brazilian case, incertain situations the street is encompassedinside the home, treating the organizationas if it were a large family. The result is a dis-course where personal relationships consti-tute the framework of the whole system. Inthe street, society is encompassed by theaxis of impersonal laws, hiding the domain ofpersonal relationships. Brazil can be read orunderstood from both perspectives, and bothpossibilities are institutionalized in the orga-nization.

Consequently, the ethic that appliesdepends on how the organization is per-ceived (as the street or as the home, i.e. iso-lated or relational), thus implying the conceptof a double-edged ethic. There are interpre-tation codes and ways of behavior that areopposite and that are valid only for certainpeople, actions and situations.

Factor P4 egalitarian v hierarchical(Table 10) complements factor P1 (em-ployee oriented v job oriented), also showingthe fascination that Brazilian organizationshave for hierarchy and tradition, describingan organization that could be interpretedusing the code of the street, the code of lawsand of individualism, as indicated by theitems that state that ordinary members nevermeet their top managers, that top managersresent being contradicted and that subordi-nates have to work according to detailedinstructions from their superiors.

Factor P5 parochial v professional(Table 11) shows how long-term planning,rational thinking and the fact that qualityprevails over quantity can be embedded in aclosed system, represented by the item thatstates that only very special people fit into theorganization.

Factor P6 informal v formal (Table 12) shows formality in discourse, in dealingwith each other as well as regarding the dresscode. Such formality fits the hierarchicallyprocess-oriented structure, as shown in theitem that states that subordinates have towork according to detailed instructions fromtheir superiors.

All in all (Table 13), the analysis of thevalue and practice dimensions appears todenote that the relational universe providesthe appropriate environment that wouldfacilitate existence in societies with high


Table 10 P4: Egalitarian v hierarchical


PP50 0.730 Ordinary members never meet their top managersPP36 0.717 Meeting times only kept approximatelyPP47 0.708 People from the right background better chance of being hiredPP2 0.683 Little concern for personal problems of employeesPP54 0.649 Administrative discontinuityPP20 0.597 Top managers resent being contradictedPP7 0.514 2nd Subordinates have to work according to detailed instructions from superiors

loading



power distance, reducing, in practice, the dis-tance imposed by hierarchy and by bureau-cracy, offering alternative functional routestypical of societies with a double-edged ethic.

Hero Dimensions

We obtained the following three factors thattogether explained 61.82% of the variance:

H1 Relational hero (impersonal v relational)H2 Moral hero (pragmatic v moral)H3 Caxias6 hero (privileges v efficiency).

Tables 14 to 16 list the variables with load-ings approximately higher than 0.50 or 0.60that were considered relevant to explain eachfactor, indicating in bold the items selected toname the dimensions. The nine key items(33) were submitted to an ecological factoranalysis (principal components analysis usingvarimax rotation) and together explained85.62% of the accumulated variance of themean scores between units. The scores and

rankings of the different company units areshown in Table 17.

In relational systems, everything is trans-lated into personal terms. Heroes are theparadigmatic figures of the social world,either as an example to be followed or as amodel to be avoided and banned. In DaMattas (1997a, b) perspective, in Brazil people live more according to an ethic of vertical loyalty and identity, rather thanaccording to the horizontal ethics thatappeared with capitalism. Thus the identifi-cation with a hierarchical superior is mucheasier than with an equal or colleague, so fostering the existence of heroes. Two factorsare always present in Latin American cul-ture: first, the need to separate theory frompractice, and second, the realization thatthere are two conceptions of what realityentails: the relational world and the imper-sonal world, the moral world and the prag-matic world, the world of work and efficiency


Table 11 P5: Parochial v professional (closed system)


PP8 0.830 We think three years ahead or morePP46 0.821 Our top managers only decide on the basis of factsPP40 0.704 We let quality prevail over quantityPP16 0.657 Everybody is conscious of costs of time and materialsPP34 0.642 Only very special people fit into our organization


Table 12 P6: Informal v formal


PP39 0.746 Style of dealing with each other formalPP10 0.693 Cooperation and trust between branches normalPP33 0.558 We always speak seriously of the organization and of our jobPP51 0.536 We always dress formally and correctlyPP7 0.536 Subordinates have to work according to detailed instructions from

superiors



and the world of privilege. The three herofactors also show the ambiguity and contra-dictions typical of Latin American cultures,where opposites are different sides of a mirror that reflects society and its duality.

The analysis of the 13 dimensions suggests that Brazilian branches, in general,are distinct from the other subsidiaries withscores that vary around the Brazilian posi-tions. In general, Brazilian culture is reputed


Table 13 Perceived practices scores and rankings

PC P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6

1 53 61 57 84 69 56 16 5 10 2 6 112 67 59 49 89 58 57 6 6 20 1 10 103 61 55 81 45 79 50 14 9 1 21 2 204 45 33 53 53 47 45 18 34 14 17 22 245 33 44 50 43 55 44 32 23 19 27 13 256 35 48 39 58 47 31 27 19 33 10 23 337 35 40 47 39 56 47 29 29 21 29 12 238 39 51 44 61 49 39 24 14 28 6 20 329 35 50 45 58 50 42 30 15 26 8 18 30

10 35 50 50 53 58 50 28 16 18 16 9 1911 43 39 47 57 45 43 20 31 22 11 24 2912 40 41 41 58 39 44 23 28 32 9 26 2713 44 43 55 55 33 57 19 26 13 14 31 914 32 43 74 37 57 51 35 25 2 31 11 1715 33 40 57 45 51 48 34 30 11 23 16 2216 34 49 65 45 48 52 31 17 6 24 21 1517 40 51 58 54 50 41 22 13 9 15 17 3118 23 41 51 45 60 43 36 27 17 22 8 2819 36 51 52 62 38 44 25 11 15 5 28 2620 35 43 44 60 45 55 26 24 27 7 25 1321 65 55 61 69 86 61 9 7 7 4 1 822 78 12 26 50 74 65 2 36 35 20 5 723 66 46 69 44 78 76 8 22 3 25 3 224 33 97 68 37 30 89 33 1 4 30 33 125 49 55 42 41 53 51 17 8 30 28 14 1826 59 53 45 56 35 68 15 10 25 12 30 427 66 48 47 79 20 56 7 18 23 3 35 1228 62 47 47 27 51 48 12 21 24 34 15 2129 61 48 52 44 39 17 13 20 16 26 27 3430 70 35 38 52 38 66 4 33 34 19 29 631 41 80 19 33 76 52 21 3 36 32 4 1632 64 71 42 52 20 71 10 4 31 18 36 333 68 33 42 17 27 66 5 35 29 35 34 534 63 38 65 10 49 53 11 32 5 36 19 1435 82 51 59 55 31 7 1 12 8 13 32 3636 76 97 56 32 60 14 3 2 12 33 7 35

Note: R indicates the ranking of the factor.


to be flexible and adaptable, apparently lessprone to extremes and favoring solutions thatemphasize harmony instead of open conflict(Da Matta, 1997a). This also suggests theimportance of the relational universe and itsrole as a social amalgam, neutralizing tensionand dissatisfaction.

Clusters of Cultural Agreement

The first purpose of this study was to identifythe OC dimensions. The second purpose wasto determine if values and practices are uni-form in the sampled organization or if thereare different organizational culture clusters.In order to identify clusters of cultural agree-

ment the 13 OC dimensions plus the 5demographic variables for the 36 units weresubmitted to a hierarchical cluster analysis,using Ward Method and square Euclideandistance. From the resulting dendrogram weselected the following four clusters (Figure 1).

Cluster 1 Latin American cluster(Santiago, Asuncion, Buenos Aires,Panama, Ciudad del Este and La Paz).

Cluster 2 Brazilian cluster (the 17Brazilian units: PC4 to PC20).

Cluster 3 Asian American cluster (NewYork, Tokyo, Miami, Securities UK,Grand Cayman and Madrid). It is worth


Table 14 H1 Relational hero (impersonal v relational)


MP1 0.879 Seniority with organization important for promotionMP5 0.804 Commitment to organization not importantMD4 0.756 Serious conflict with superiors reason for dismissalMP3 0.750 Being politic and knowing how to negotiate not importantMD3 0.661 Married man/woman having sexual relations with subordinate reason for

dismissal

Table 15 H2 Moral hero (pragmatic v moral)


MD6 0.797 Appropriating without permission US$ 100,000.00 worth of company propertyreason for dismissal

MD2 0.785 Not having relationships that protect you in case of a lay-off is not reason fordismissal

MD5 0.631 Appropriating without permission US$100.00 worth of company property reason for dismissal

MP6 0.511 Having a good relationship with those higher in the hierarchy not important forpromotion

Table 16 H3 Caxias hero (privileges v efficiency)


MD1 0.756 Poor performance is reason for dismissalMP2 0.672 Proven performance important for promotionMP4 0.631 Diplomas and formal qualifications not important for promotion


mentioning that in this cluster there aretwo European units, namely SecuritiesUK and Madrid.

Cluster 4 European cluster (Milan,Lisbon, London, Paris, Frankfurt,Vienna and Amsterdam).

In order to verify if the identified clusterswere, in fact, significant, we submitted theoriginal 131 variables (except the demo-graphic variables as they had already beenused in the cluster analysis), to Multiple Dis-criminant Analysis and the results obtaineddid not present any classification errors.


Table 17 Heroes: scores and rankings

PC H1 H2 H3 RH1 RH2 RH3

1 60 51 83 14 21 22 51 28 74 18 33 33 43 30 95 19 31 14 33 52 47 32 18 215 36 71 49 26 4 186 34 54 30 30 16 347 35 58 54 28 12 158 37 36 38 23 29 309 36 24 16 25 34 35

10 35 40 47 29 27 2211 34 37 48 31 28 1912 35 51 45 27 20 2413 36 57 50 24 13 1714 32 51 66 35 19 515 32 46 44 33 24 2516 37 56 59 21 14 817 31 51 41 36 22 2818 37 69 62 22 5 619 32 59 57 34 9 1020 40 61 60 20 8 721 83 54 68 1 15 422 63 59 41 9 11 2723 66 33 33 8 30 3224 55 48 38 17 23 2925 61 75 57 11 3 1226 66 29 57 7 32 1127 76 54 34 3 17 3128 67 45 57 6 25 1329 75 15 47 4 36 2330 62 19 43 10 35 2631 57 63 48 16 7 2032 69 65 15 5 6 3633 61 40 51 13 26 1634 77 82 59 2 1 935 61 59 55 12 10 1436 58 75 32 15 2 33



Figure 1 Dendrogram


According to some authors (e.g. Fine andKleinman, 1979; Van Maanen and Barley,1985) social interaction is the essential condi-tion for developing collective understanding.However, it should be noted that for Hoggand Abrams (1988) the uniformity of groupbehavior is the result of the individuals self-concept as group members and not of theirinteractions. On the other hand, the variablethat, apparently, best discriminates betweengroups is nationality: as clearly shown by thedendrogram (Figure1).

Martin (1992) proposed that OCs couldbe studied from three different perspectives:

1 Studies that follow the integration perspective describe OCs as being universally accepted by all organizationmembers. Integrative research typicallydescribes culture as the strength of organizational solidarity.

2 Studies that follow the differentiationperspective focus on the different culturalstreams that coexist in organizations. Itis believed that cultural agreement onlyexists within the limits of small subgroups,i.e. of organizational sub-cultures.

3 Studies that follow the fragmentationperspective state that there would not beclear patterns of cultural agreement inorganizations.

The differentiation perspective supportsthe belief that an OC comprises a variety ofdifferent sub-cultures. Cultural consensusand consistency would only exist within thelimits of each sub-culture. Moreover, eachsub-culture would develop its unique mean-ing system and there would not be culturalagreement between sub-cultures (Martin,1992). The differentiation perspective thusdepicts culture as a mosaic of homogene-ously colored pieces with clear boundaries(Hannerz, 1992). Although we believe in theexistence of sub-cultures, Greenberg (1999)argues that there are some problematic features in their description. One of theseissues is the existence of clear boundaries

between sub-cultures. Considering the factthat multiple factors, and not only one factor,simultaneously affect the development of cultural agreement, and taking into accountthat some of the variables are correlated,then cultural consensus could develop amongdifferent groups without having clear bound-aries. On the other hand, the determinationof the factors or dimensions and their com-ponents, which implies a relatively highdegree of researcher subjectivity, would alsoaffect the boundaries that delimit the differ-ent clusters of cultural agreement.

Another problematic feature is theemphasis on the fact that each sub-culturehas a unique meaning system. That wouldsuggest that the members of each group havedeveloped a unique shared understandinginvolving all the cultural domains that formthe system of meaning. However, it might bepossible that a sub-culture developed culturalagreement in some domains but not in others. That would imply that the clusters ofcultural agreement might not develop con-sensus in connection with the complete system of meaning. As Sackmann (1991,1992) demonstrated, differences betweenclusters of cultural agreement can developaround some areas of cultural knowledge butnot around others.

Although we consider that OCs can bedescribed in terms of clusters, we agree withGreenberg (1999) that cluster configurationis not a permanent characteristic, but thatdifferent clusters of cultural agreement canemerge due to changes in the organizationalcontext, or as different issues acquire rele-vance attracting the attention of organiza-tional members to different affiliations. Thissuggests that the three cultural perspectivesmight be interrelated or interwoven insteadof parallel states. That being the case, OCscould oscillate between the states of inte-gration, differentiation and fragmentation(Greenberg, 1999). Consequently, as theorganization changed and the attention of its members was focused on different view-



points, the OC could become more inte-grated, differentiated or fragmented. Forexample, when an organization felt threat-ened by competition, or in the specific case ofXYZ by privatization, it could develop con-sensus in order to defend itself and survive.

On the other hand, in other circum-stances, such as an internal issue involvingdifferences in benefits between new employ-ees and those working for the company for alonger period of time (i.e. before the com-pany was restructured), could foster the formation of cultural agreement clustersbased on that premise. Once the issue wasdealt with, or when another issue took prece-dence, new clusters of cultural agreementcould substitute for the former ones.

Additionally, multiple factors, sometimesnot easily detectable, can influence culturalagreement cluster formation in such waysthat the organization could instead develop aweb of cultural agreement that could lead itto a state of cultural fragmentation, thusimplying the non-existence of clear patternsof cultural agreement.

The possibility of the three culture per-spectives being interrelated also suggests thatresearchers may have to reconsider the depthof their OC definitions. Many researchershave defined OC as dependent on sharedassumptions about values and practices (for example, Peters and Waterman, 1982;Schein, 1992). According to Hofstede (2001),deeply held assumptions in connection withvalues are formed during the early stages oflife and are, therefore, very difficult tochange. Consequently, if researchers believethat shared understanding in an organizationcan oscillate between integrated, differen-tiated or fragmented cultures, then it may beappropriate to consider that OC exists at themore superficial level of practices, as hasbeen argued by Hofstede et al. (1990).

Moreover, in hierarchical and relationalorganizations, social interaction, throughrelational networks, is usually of great rele-vance. In that type of organization, the

leaders can use social interaction mecha-nisms to coercively or persuasively influencethe cultural understanding of group mem-bers. In that context, organizational leaderscould use relational networks to try to controlthe development of shared understanding. Ifthe organization had only one powerfulleader, that individual could foster the devel-opment of cultural agreement in the entireorganization. On the other hand, if therewere multiple leaders in the organizationalcontext (as seems to be the case in organiza-tion XYZ, where power, is chiefly concen-trated in the regional superintendencies)interacting with different groups, then differ-ent sub-cultures could emerge, based on the various directions signaled by those dif-ferent leaders. That would confirm Pfeffers (1981) and Smircich and Morgans (1982)argument that organizational leaders havemany opportunities to influence sharedunderstanding and practices.

Conclusions

According to Motta and Caldas (1997) one ofthe key factors that differentiates the cultureof one organization from the culture ofanother, and probably the most importantfactor, is national culture. The basic assump-tions, costumes, beliefs and values, as well as the artifacts that characterize the cultureof an organization, are always somehowencompassed by the corresponding nationalculture. It is therefore impossible to study theculture of organizations that operate in asociety, without studying the culture of thatsociety. Thus the study of the organizationalculture of a Brazilian company requiresunderstanding Brazilian culture. For theseauthors, Hofstedes (1980) most importantfinding refers to the importance of nationalculture in order to explain the differences inwork-related attitudes and values.

Brazilians, no matter how differentiatedthey may be in their racial and culturalmatrices and in their ecological-regional



functions, or in respect of being old settlers or recent immigrants, have come to knowthemselves, to feel themselves, and to act as asingle people, belonging to the one same andonly culture. They are a national entity distinct from all others, speaking the samelanguage, differing only in regional accents.They take part in a body of common tradi-tions that is more meaningful for all than areany of the existing sub-cultural variants, as isclearly shown in the dendrogram (Figure 1)where Brazil forms an individual separatecluster. Nevertheless, the cultural uniformityand national unity must not blind us to thedisparities, to the contradictions and antago-nisms that subsist beneath them as dynamicfactors of major importance (Ribeiro, 2000).Lying hidden beneath Brazilian cultural uni-formity is a profound social distance repro-duced in organizations in the stratificationthat separates those with power from theirsubordinates, where hierarchy, authority,privilege and tradition mingle with modernforms of management, usually derived fromindividualistic ideologies, revealing the ambi-guity and duality of Brazilian culture.

For Sergio Buarque de Holanda (1995)Brazilians inherited their characteristics fromthe Iberians: Hispanic arrogance and Portu-guese laxness and plasticity as well as anadventurous spirit and appreciation of loyaltyin both. The mixture of all those ingredientsprobably resulted a certain slackness andanarchy, lack of cohesion, disorder and indiscipline (as stated in item CT6 typicalmember sloppy of Factor P1 employeeoriented v job oriented). From such percep-tion would derive the tendency towards hierarchy and authoritarianism. On the otherhand, for Ribeiro (2000) those defects arealso the source of the creativity of the adven-turer, the adaptability of someone who is notrigid but flexible (see item CT4 typicalmember flexible of Factor P3 isolated vrelational), the vitality of someone who facesfate and fortune with daring and the original-ity of an undisciplined people.

Thus Brazilian organizations usually present a high power distance. The wayworkers and executives are treated seems, onthe one hand, to be based on masculine typecontrols and use of authority, and, on theother hand, on feminine type controls and onthe use of seduction and favor typical of rela-tional networks. Moreover, organizations areat the same time producers and product oftheir culture. The OC cannot be considereda photograph of the organization but aninterpretation of the complex organizationalreality as perceived by its members. Conse-quently, the dimensions identified in thisstudy partly reflect the OC dimensions identified by Hofstede et al. (1990), but theyalso show unique features based on the speci-ficities of the organization and of Brazilianculture.

Organizations are symbolic entities: theyfunction according to implicit models in theminds of their members, and these modelsare culturally determined. In terms of valuesit is crucial to answer the questions of whodecides what, and how can one be assuredthat what should be done will be done(Hofstede, 2001).

In terms of the usefulness of the OC construct for management, the researchapproach can be generalized to organiza-tions elsewhere. However, the conclusionsand the 10 (6 on perceived practices and 4 onheroes) dimensions cannot be generalized.This is because demographic characteristicssuch as age, education and gender, and per-sonality also play roles. Theories, models andpractices are culture specific: they may applyacross borders, but this should always beproved.

Results show the influence of nationalculture on organizational culture, as thedimensions found clearly reflect the ambi-guity and double-edged ethic characteristicof Brazilian culture in particular and of LatinAmerican culture in general. This study alsoshows the importance of hierarchy and ofrelational networks, which stresses the rele-



vance of the cultural element in organiza-tional structure and functioning. QuotingHofstede (2001: 377): The structure andfunctioning of organizations are not deter-mined by a universal rationality. There is nobest way that can be deduced from technical-economical logic.

Also in connection with the importanceattributed to hierarchy is the issue of powerredistribution, which includes all forms ofempowerment such as consultative and participative forms of management. In organizations with a high need for authority,if power redistribution is imposed, it maybecome self-destructive (because, accordingto Hofstede, 2001, if it succeeds, continuedimposition would no longer be possible) or,for example, it may just be reduced to a ritu-alistic representation of participation becauseit is perceived as the politically correct dis-course by the managerial establishment.

In hierarchical and relational organiza-tions, according to Da Matta (1997a), oncepeople are positioned in a network of per-sonal relationships they are automaticallytreated as friends and can be a potentialsource of power resources and a means ofsocial and political manipulation by reciproc-ity and favor.

In brief, understanding the relationaldouble-edged ethic that governs Brazilianculture helps us understand apparently different, ambiguous or even contradictorybehaviors reflected in the OC practices of aBrazilian company with international opera-tions. Furthermore, according to Stevensonand Bartunek (1996), most organizationalculture studies that admit the existence of different cultural clusters either focus ondetailed ethnographic descriptions of the various sub-cultures that coexist in an orga-nization or examine how those sub-culturesaffect the organization. There is, therefore,little empirical research that directly dealswith what combination of factors makes indi-viduals agree or disagree over their culturalviewpoints. Consequently, we consider that

this study attempts to deal with that issue asthe cultural clusters were obtained with amultivariate approach, using the 5 demo-graphic variables and the 13 identifiedorganizational dimensions.

The results of this study suggest the internal organizational environment can alsoaffect the extent to which the cultural agree-ment of organizational members is influ-enced by nationality. The situational contexthas the potential to strengthen or weaken theidentification of individuals with their groupand the internalization of their identity group values (Hernes, 1997; Larkey, 1996).The organizational context may thereforeincrease or reduce the probability of nation-ality affecting the cultural agreement ofgroup members. In this sense, it should benoticed that several of the non-Brazilianbranches have high percentages of em-ployees of Brazilian or Latin origin.

Furthermore, monolithic organizationshave high levels of occupational segregationwhere the senior managerial level wouldbasically be composed of members of thesame nationality as the head office (i.e.expatriates), while all other levels would generally be occupied by local individuals,from the host country or of the same nation-ality as the head office but locally hired andthus subject to local employment regulations,as seems to be the case in the non-BrazilianXYZ branches.

Additionally, Edstrm and Galbraith(1977) dealt with the issue of how inter-national firms could extensively use person-nel transfers to implement socialization pro-grams that would result in an internationalnetwork of verbal information that wouldallow a higher decentralization and foster amore open and positive attitude towardsother nationalities and cultures, building oncommitment to the organization as a whole,and thus favoring cultural agreement.However, that practice does not as a ruleexist in XYZ, where the transfer of locallyhired personnel from the non-Brazilian



branches to the branches in Brazilian terri-tory is practically non-existent. In such context, where the organization has a mono-lithic profile and where transfers for social-ization are non-existent, organizationalmembers tend to identify strongly with theirlocal groups, and their interpretation of theorganizational reality tends to be in agree-ment with the values and beliefs of their local group, thus stimulating differentiatedpractices from those of the home office.

Summing up, the analysis of organiza-tional culture is a key factor in order to manage change in an organization, and, assuch, its understanding requires the identifi-cation of values and practices as well as theexistence of clusters of cultural agreementand the possibility of coexistence of differentsystems of meanings. Specifically in the caseof organizations with branches in differentcountries with different national cultures, itmust be noted that organizational valueshave to be legitimized by the cultural valuesof the host society and cannot be studied as ifthey were the exclusive production of organi-zations, as if organizations operated in a vacuum. Thus, according to Hofstede (1997),the core of OC is in the practices shared byits members. Consequently, national cultureswould differ mainly on their basic values,while OCs would differ more superficially interms of their practices, which would be the visible parts of culture and could be manageable within certain limits.

Finally, if managers understand the factors that lead to cluster formation in theirorganization, they may be able to use theinformation to prepare themselves to man-age across different groups in order toachieve goals that involve the entire organi-zations participation, as well as dealing withconflict between groups by creating bridgesbetween the different commonalities, thusproviding the organization with an impor-tant leverage point for organizational culturemanagement.

Notes1 The term personalism is usually used for the

particular kind of holism evident in LatinAmerican societies (also known as relationalsocieties, or collectivistic societies). Romani andZander (1998) defined individualism as theprioritization of the individual in relation tothe group and collectivism as the prioritizationof the group. However, they distinguishbetween elective and forced groups. Electivegroups, such as clubs, would be those wherethe priorities of the individuals prevail as theycan choose whether to belong to the group ornot. On the other hand, in forced groupssuch as the family, the relationship betweenindividuals would prevail. According toDumont (1966, 1980) holism would be thepriority given to the social links amongindividuals or to relationships, whileindividualism would be the priority given toindividuals. In this sense, the opposite ofindividualism would be holism and notcollectivism. Thus individualism and collectivismwould be separate dimensions that couldcoexist in the same individuals or groups ofindividuals. In connection with this issue,Triandis (1995) argued that social groupscould have, for example, very individualisticbehaviors at work and very collectivisticbehaviors in the family. Consequently, itwould be important to see how social groupsperceive their work environment: if aselective or as forced groups. If theorganization were perceived as an electivegroup, the fact that the group privileges theinterests of the group would not necessarilydefine a collectivistic attitude. In brief, theopposite of individualism would be to prioritizerelationships (holism) and not to prioritize thegroup (collectivism), as groups can be electiveor forced.

2 The following 17 Brazilian cities wereselected to make part of the sample: SouthRegion: Porto Alegre, Curitiba andFlorianpolis. SE Region: So Paulo, Rio deJaneiro, Belo Horizonte and Vitria. NERegion: Salvador, Recife, Fortaleza, So Luisand Natal. North Region: Belm andManaus. Center-West Region: CampoGrande, Cuiab and Goinia.

3 Values: 22 items coded OT on workorganization, 7 items coded FV with variousformats and 28 items coded CG on generalbeliefs.Perceived practices: 54 items coded PP on



perceived practices and 7 items coded CT onthe behavior of a typical organizationmember.Heroes: 7 items coded MP on reasons forpromotion and 6 items coded MD on reasonsfor dismissal.

4 (a) Variables with 5-point importance scales(i.e. the 22 questions on work goals and the 7questions on reasons for promotion) werestandardized to eliminate acquiescence. Forexample, standardizing across the 22 goalsreplaces the scores with the distance fromtheir common overall mean divided by theircommon standard deviation. The overallmean of the standardized scores for the 22goals for each group is always zero. As wewere interested in eliminating acquiescenceas a group phenomenon, we single-standardized group means across goals (firstcalculating group means and thenstandardizing). In order to avoid negativescores and decimal points we gave thestandardized scores a mean of 500 and astandard deviation of 100; also their sign wasreversed so that a very important goal wouldscore around 700 and the least importantgoals would score below 300.(b) For the other questions the answersshowed a clear midpoint (such as undecidedbetween agree and disagree) so unit meanswere not standardized. In this case, meanswere also inverted so that the highest valuesindicated agreement and the lowest onesdisagreement, using the following formula:100 (variable * 10) and thus transformingoriginal values into two-digit values.(c) In ecological analysis nominal orcategorical variables had their frequencydistributions dichotomized at the mostmeaningful point and the answerssummarized in percentages:FV1 preferred manager: we used thepercentage of consultative manager +participative manager, representing about86% of the preferences.FV2 perceived manager: we used thepercentage of authoritative manager +paternalistic manager, representing about52% of the perceptions.FV5 time that they intend to work for theorganization: we used the percentage ofemployees that intend to leave the companybefore retirement (representingapproximately 57% of the intentions).Sex: we used the percentage of men,representing 61% of the sample.

Nationality or percentage of local employees:For the Brazilian units we computed thepercentage of employees from the region theunit belonged to. For all other units wecomputed the percentage of employees fromthe country the unit belonged to.

5 Hofstede (2001) argues that that instrumentsdesigned to study culture have their reliabilitysupported by literature. In fact, thecalculation of Cronbachs alpha or ofmeasures of sampling adequacy such asBartletts sphericity test would be equivalentto committing the reverse of the ecologicalfallacy, in the sense that the individual andthe social levels of analysis should not beconfounded (Hofstede, 2001).

6 Da Matta (1997b) presents a trilogy of heroes that coexist in Brazilian society: thecaxias, the renouncer, and the rogue.The caxias is named after the BrazilianDuke of Caxias, symbolizing order, rules andhierarchy. The renouncer rejects the socialworld as it is; he or she is emblematic of adifferent reality. The rogue rejects formalrules, is of course excluded from the labormarket, and is in fact totally averse to work.

ReferencesAdler, Nancy (1982) Understanding the Ways of

Understanding: Cross-cultural ManagementMethodology Reviewed. Montreal, Canada:McGill University Press.

Buarque de Holanda, Sergio (1995) Razes doBrasil. So Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

Burkhardt, M. (1994) Social Interaction EffectsFollowing a Technological Change: ALongitudinal Investigation, Academy ofManagement Journal 37(4): 86998.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961) The Managementof Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Clark, A. (1972) Mutual Relevance ofMainstream and Cross-cultural Psychology,Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55:46170.

Cooke, R. and Rousseau, D. (1988) BehavioralNorms and Expectations. A QuantitativeApproach to the Assessment ofOrganizational Culture, Group andOrganizational Studies 13: 24573.

Da Matta, Roberto (1997a) A Casa & a Rua:Espao, Cidadania, Mulher e Morte no Brasil. Riode Janeiro: Editora Guanabara.

Da Matta, Roberto (1997b) Carnavais, Malandros e



Heris: Para uma Sociologia do Dilema Brasileiro.Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.

Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate Culture.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Denison, D. (1984) Corporate Culture andOrganizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

Dumont, Louis (1966, 1980) Homo Hierarchicus:The Caste System and its Implications. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.

Edstrm, Anders and Galbraith, Jay (1977)Transfer of Managers as a Coordination andControl Strategy in MultinationalOrganizations, Administrative Science Quarterly22(June): 24863.

Fine, Gary and Kleinman, Sherryl (1979)Rethinking Subculture: An InteractionistAnalysis, American Journal of Sociology 85(1):120.

Geertz, Clifford (1993) The Interpretation of Cultures.New York: Basic Books.

Greenberg, Danna (1999) DisentanglingCultures: Similarity, Interaction and CulturalAgreement in the MultinationalOrganization, Doctoral dissertation, BostonCollege, Carroll School of Management.

Gregory, Kathleen (1983) Native-viewParadigms: Multiple Cultures and CultureConflicts in Organizations, AdministrativeScience Quarterly (28): 35976.

Hannerz, Ulf (1992) CenterPeriphery Relationsand Creolization in Contemp

Documents

brazilian National Culture Org Culture