Management and Culture under Development - United …unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/... · · 2013-01-25aspirations in that direction’ ... without which

Labour and Management in Development

EManagement and culture underdevelopment

Michael Hess99-2

Asia Pacific Press at theAUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

http://ncdsnet.anu.edu.au

east asia

JourJourJourJourJournalnalnalnalnal

mdLVolume 2, Number 3

Labour and Management in Development Journal, Volume 2, Number 3 2© Asia Pacific Press 2001

Management and culture under development Michael Hess

© Asia Pacific Press 2001

This work is copyright. Apart from those uses which may be permitted under the CopyrightAct 1968 as amended, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permissionfrom the publisher.

ISSN 1443–6698

ISBN 0 7315 3673 8

Michael Hess teaches organisational change, human resource management and labourrelations at the National Centre for Development Studies, the Australian NationalUniversity.

Abbreviations

IBM International Business Machines

PNG Papua New Guinea



The role of culture in shaping workbehaviour has been the focus of scholarlycommentary since the European industrialrevolution. Recent research in the context ofglobalisation has focused on cross-culturalmanagement and the variety of workattitudes exhibited by employees fromculturally diverse backgrounds. Hofstede’sseminal work in this area established a rolefor ‘national culture’ as a major determinantof workplace behaviour. While this has beenthe subject of academic criticism for itsreductionism, it has provided aconceptualisation of the relationshipbetween work organisation and culturewhich has been broadly influential inmanagement circles.

In nations in which governments arepursuing policies intended to encourageaccelerated economic growth many echoescan be heard of both the industrialisationand the cross-cultural managementdiscourses. In these contemporary situationsof ‘development’, a characteristic ofworkplace behaviour is the conflict inassumptions and attitudes between theorganisational cultures informingmanagement actions and the social cultureswhich workers carry with them from theirnon-work environments. This articleconsiders the constraints culturallyconditioned attitudes create for themanagement of work organisations in anumber of ‘developing’ countries.

The changes in the nature of workbrought about by the advent of industrialproduction in Europe were mirrored inattitudinal changes, with direct impacts onwork motivation and the task ofmanagement. A simplistic way of

conceptualising these changes is to think ofthe pre-industrial era as one in which thework of individuals was determined by theirsocial status. Under industrialism theopposite tendency is evident with workitself becoming a major determinant of theposition of individuals in society. In pre-industrial Europe those of greater socialstatus saw both the material necessity andpersonal motivation to work as sure signsof inferior status. The aristocrat looked downon the dedicated Puritan economic activityof the middle class traders and tradesmen,and glorified the cult of the amateur overthe role of the professional in fields rangingfrom sport to politics (Moore 1973:488–90).Work attitudes for wage employees,however, were determined by neither ofthese sets of constraints. For most, it wassimply a matter of necessity, with theextrinsic value of wages being the solemotivation. Under industrial production‘work design excluded for all but a minorityof skilled men the possibility of intrinsicmeanings, and the struggle for survivalabsorbed too much energy to allowaspirations in that direction’ (Fox 1980:163).

Thus the new form of production createda need for new forms of organisationalmanagement, not only because of the needto organise an increasingly complex systemof production with more people workingmore intensively, but also because of thecharacter of work relationships and thenature of work motivation under the newforms of production. Contemporary studiesof worker discontent locate it in two mainsources—employment insecurity and lack ofcontrol over the job (Frenkel and Coolican1984:138). Both of these increased



dramatically with the development ofmarket oriented forms of production.Simultaneously, labour became acommodity to be bought and sold in amarket in which employers had the strongerposition because of their ability to provideor withhold the employment workersneeded to earn a livelihood and gain socialstatus (Keenoy 1985:89–95). In these changedcircumstances of increased insecurity, inwhich the aim of production was to use theskills of employees to create profit,management filled the central task ofmotivating workers, without which the aimsof entrepreneurial economic activity couldnot be realised (Whitfield 1987:8–10).

The problem for management in thisendeavour was and remains that economicnecessity may of itself be an insufficientmotivator of employees, particularly wherequality work is required. Intrinsic as well asextrinsic factors will play a role. Thedichotomy this establishes may be seen inthe historical opposition of economic andreligious ways of thinking about work. Inthe example of industrialising Europe, theorthodox Christian approach to work,derived from the New Testament writers,saw it as a means by which an individual‘satisfies his or her God-given role in theorder of Creation’ (Gordon 1994:25). So thethirteenth century saint Thomas Aquinascould conclude that ‘to live well is to workwell’ (summa theologicae I-II, q.57, a.5). Thecontrast between this ideological tradition,in which work is an essential part ofindividuals’ living out their createdness, andthe actual jobs of the ‘dark satanic mills’ ofindustrialising Europe could hardly begreater.

Some parallels with contemporarysocieties undergoing accelerated economicdevelopment are evident in this Europeanhistory. For instance, the conclusions ofWestern anthropologists regarding thenature of work in more recently non-industrial societies stress that theindividual’s role in work was determinedby their status in society (Applebaum1984:3–12). Where this has been the case,market oriented economic activity willclearly bring about major changes, withconsequent social tensions as individualsand communities attempt to cope with thechanges in attitude demanded by newapproaches to work. Nor is Christianity byany means the only source of traditionalideology to emphasise the differencebetween that work which is an outpouringof an individual’s essential self and the jobwhich is undertaken as a means oflivelihood. The Hindu imprecation to ‘knowtherefore what is work and also know whatis wrong work’ (The Bhagavad Gita 1962:62)carries the same implication that work isproperly more than just a means of survival.The Taoist tradition is even more explicit inurging its followers not to take their jobs tooseriously—‘just do your job then let go’ soas to concentrate on the real work of self-fulfilment (Tao Te Ching 1988:24).

A linguistic exercise might equally beused to demonstrate the point. ‘Job’ is arelatively new word in English owing itsimmediate origins to the Middle Englishgobbe (lump) and the subsequent, but nowobsolete, usage jobbe (piece). The term ‘jobwork’ was originally used precisely todifferentiate a discrete piece of work fromthe more general and, in the thinking of the



day, more genuine work of life. This isreflected in Samuel Johnson’s definition of‘job’ as ‘petty piddling work; a piece ofchance work’ (Johnson 1963:22). Thedifference may also be seen in some currentusages with reference to the ‘great work’ ofparticularly creative or influential peoplestanding in stark contrast to the ‘it’s just ajob’ attitude of ‘ordinary’ workers. There isa considerable literature investigating thisdichotomy.1 The point here is merely to notethat, at certain points in the histories ofhuman societies, those which haveorganised their economies on the basis ofmarkets have commodified labour. In thesesocieties, work became a creature of themarket and financial considerations becameprimary. In this sense, work lost its directrelationship with the broader issues of life.In the more recent history of industrialismthe emergence of employee motivation as akey management concern is an indicator ofthe extent of this loss. The managementcommentators who have focused attentionon personal achievement and self-actualisation in work as basic human needsare also pointing to the absence of suchbroadly satisfying aspects in many—perhaps most—areas of employment.

In many situations of ‘development’,accelerated economic growth and rapid socialchange add a level of complexity to thisgeneral managerial dilemma. This may beseen in the disparity between the attitudesand behaviour expected of employees in theworkplace and those which are normal intheir non-work environments.

In general, work behaviour is clearlyconditioned by a variety of sociallysanctioned attitudes that might be regarded

as the product of particular ‘cultures’. Anunderstanding of this impact of culture onwork may be seen as a necessary step tounderstanding the way work is managed inparticular organisational and socialenvironments. In the particular context of‘development’, this often means that theculture of work organisations is at variancewith the broader cultures influential inemployees’ lives. As one Filipinocommentator on management practices hasput it, ‘we have cut our teeth on structuraland systematic concepts from the West, yetbeneath the Western veneer these haveconstructed we are, deep within, Asian inour values and feelings’ (Ortigas 1994:6). Forscholars and managers seeking tounderstand work behaviour in situations ofaccelerated economic and socialdevelopment this dichotomy is deeplysignificant. The issue can be illustrated byreference to the implications it has for themotivation of employees.

The general problem of motivation is thatthe variety of individual employee’s aimswill translate into varying degrees ofcommitment to the goals of the organisationsin which they are employed. Since many ofthese personal aims are the product ofcultural mores, an understanding of theimpact of social culture on work is alsorequired if we are to appreciate the task ofmanagement in maximising thecontributions of individuals toorganisational goals. So cultural impacts onwork may also be seen as having twinsources. The first is in the community at largeand is seen in the attitudes people bring towork. The second is in the work organisationitself, where culture is a product of rules and



control mechanisms but also of the verticaland horizontal interactions betweenmembers of the organisation.

In developed market economiesacculturation to work is strong. With socialattitudes generally supportive of workorganisation it may become quite difficultto separate social from work culture or toidentify any discrete impacts of culture onwork. Nonetheless, cultural stereotypes areregularly produced by managementcommentators in explanation of social andorganisational behaviour. So, of Europeansthey tell us that

the Belgians [are] inclined to be pragmatic,the Danes to be indulgent, the Englishconservative, the French elitist, theGermans orderly, the Greeks patriarchal,the Irish loquacious, the Italiansdependent, the Dutch reserved, thePortuguese resilient, the Spanish fatalistic[and so on] (Hickson 1993:250).

Americans are seen to be ambitiousindividualists for whom market and intra-organisational competition is second nature(DuBrin 1989:261–66; Alston 1985:69–100).The white settler societies of Australia andNew Zealand, on the other hand, have beencharacterised as less dedicated to work andmore to leisure with a particular penchantfor the ‘long weekend’. By contrast, Japaneseculture is seen to have achieved a raresymbiosis between individual need andorganisational demand in which primacy isgiven to group loyalty and personalrelationships, with generalists rather thanspecialists being favoured as managers(Robbins 1993:326-6,340; Nanto 1988:7) andcontinuous training and improvement being

both an organisational and a personal aim(Hanada and Yoshikawa 1991:378).

The most influential model forconceptualising the role of culture withinmanagement discourse has been thatestablished by Hofstede’s seminal study ofattitudes of IBM employees in 40 countries(1980). Hofstede identified four keydimensions of national culture impacting onattitudes to work organisation. These werepower-distance, uncertainty avoidance,individualism and masculinity–femininity.His analysis was broadened by a subsequentstudy involving respondents from 53countries (Hofstede 1993). While Japan,Singapore and Taiwan were included, alongwith the settler societies of North Americaand Australasia, the nations covered wereindustrialised or European, in varioussenses, or both. Nonetheless, the breadthand depth of these studies have led to theirbeing widely seen as authoritative.Hofstede’s conclusion was that, in each ofthese key dimensions, national culture hada greater influence on attitudes than gender,age, occupation or organisational status. Abrief overview of Hofstede’s fourdimensions will allow some generalcomments on their applicability to workorganisations in nations pursuingaccelerated economic development.

Hofstede saw his power-distancedimension as being about ‘humaninequality’ (Hofstede 1980:92), in which‘power-distance represents the extent towhich the less powerful people in a cultureaccept and expect that power is distributedunequally’ (Hofstede 1993:2). His originalargument was that the extent to which



culture legitimises power differentialsbetween individuals impacts on actions andstructures across much of national life(Hofstede 1980:92–93). The results of this inemployment are that, in high power-distance cultures, ‘subordinates acceptsuperiors as different kinds of people’ (Pugh1993:88) and ‘employees…expect managersto lead, and they become uncomfortablewith the delegation of discretionarydecisions’ (Adler 1991:151 [REF?]). While inlow power-distance cultures ‘superiors andsubordinates consider each other to becolleagues and [agree that]…inequality insociety should be minimised’ (Pugh1993:88).

Once again a particular problem isevident in those situations in whichemployees bring to the workplace a differentset of attitudes to those sanctioned orassumed in the culture of the workorganisation itself. In terms of humanequality, an obvious arena for such a clashis in the competing claims of managementand social hierarchy. Market oriented workorganisation tends to endorse differentialsin wealth, status and ‘ability’ based onmarket values. This is, however, by nomeans the only way in which societies haveconceptualised hierarchy. Of particularrelevance to nations pursuing acceleratedeconomic growth are the perceptions ofsocial status and ‘moral economy’ broughtto work organisations by employees fromrural areas. A useful illustration of thepotential impact of these is provided inScott’s work on the nature of peasant socialattitudes in southeast Asian nations. Hisconclusion is that, in these situations, valuesare derived from economic necessity and

emphasise the safety factors of horizontalcooperation and vertical patronage, ratherthan personal competition and initiative(Scott 1976).

In the context of ‘developing’ economies,Hofstede’s second dimension for measuringcultural impacts on work, ‘uncertaintyavoidance’, also has a particular resonance.This arises from the fact that the innovationand risk-taking that are an integral part ofmarket oriented management may not bereflected in the social attitudes thatemployees bring to work. Even in Hofstede’ssample of European and industrialisedAsian nations a considerable variety wasevident with Greece and Japan showinghigh uncertainty avoidance and the UnitedStates standing at the opposite end of thespectrum. The impacts on work behaviourcan be seen in relation to motivationalfactors. So,

employees in high uncertainty avoidancecountries tend to consider job security andlife-time employment more important thanholding a very interesting or challengingjob (Adler 1991:153).

The truth in many ‘developing’ countriesis that holding any job is an enormousachievement in itself and individuals maywell be prepared to accept both low wagesand lack of employment security to gain anincome.

Hofstede’s individualism dimension‘describes the relationship between theindividual and the collectivity whichprevails in a given society’ (Hofstede1980:213). The distinction here is betweenindividualist and collectivist approaches.The individualist ethic is ‘highly right-



conscious…knowing full-well where one’sself-interests lie’ (Chen 1995:28–29), whereasthe collectivist approach ‘is characterised bya tighter social framework’ with emphasison family or clan loyalty (Pugh 1993:89). Inthe former, the ideal type of person is aleader, while in the latter she/he is a goodmember of the group. In management terms,an individualist culture requires explicitcontrol within organisations, whereas acollectivist culture provides that control viasocial pressure so that the organisation itselfmay rely on this implicit control to manageits members (Adler 1991:47).

Given that few ‘developing’ countriesexhibit the individualism of market orientedsocieties, this dimension provides anotherpotential point of conflict betweenorganisational culture owing much to‘Western’ ideas and social culture arisingfrom within a particular national context.The ‘confucian dynamism’ (Hofstede andBond 1988) observed by foreigners in Asiannations provides a case in point. So,however, does the more general observationthat in non-European nations ‘motivation tosucceed at work often derives from familypride and family needs’ rather thanindividualist motives (Bedi 1991:10).

This dichotomy is also evident inHofstede’s final dimension ‘masculinity–femininity’, with the ‘masculine’ valuesdefined in terms of ambition, assertivenessand strength (Hofstede 1993:3). In suchcultures ‘performance is whatcounts…money and material standards areimportant…big and fast are beautiful’ (Pugh1993:89). By contrast ‘in feminine cultures,men and women are both expected to benon-competitive, modest, concerned with

relationships and to sympathise withwhatever is small and weak’ (Hofstede1993:3) so that it is ‘the quality of life thatmatters, people and the environment areimportant [and] service providesmotivation’ (Pugh 1993:89).

A major difficulty with Hofstede’sapproach is that it involves a high degree ofgeneralisation. Characteristics which areestablished as dominant in a particularnation are taken to apply generally. Thefailure to take into account non-nationaldifferences elevates normative values to thepoint where others become invisible. Thismay be particularly damaging formanagement in respect of genderdifferences, especially where female workersconstitute a large part of the workforce.Despite these analytical shortcomings,however, the broad acceptance of the viewsrepresented by Hofstede and his followersis evidence of how seriously the culturalstereotype is taken in managementdiscourse. In practice, many managerialtechniques assume a shared, or at least anoverlapping, set of values betweenemployees and employers derived from acommon national culture supportive ofwork.

The point is that this becomes a particularissue where the culture of workorganisations represents a marked departurefrom the social cultures surrounding them.This is typically the case in the workorganisations of nations undergoing rapideconomic change where newly introducedforms of organisation operate within wellestablished social cultures which havedeveloped in response to quite differentrationalities (Pinches and Lakha 1987). The



difficulties this poses for the creation of acapable workforce willing to partner capitalin the tasks of economic development arelegion. At its most simplistic, they are seenin employees’ poor levels of motivation andlow labour productivity. On the managerialside, non-market rationalities may be seenin nepotism, status consciousness and otherforms of what Westerners typically see as‘corruption’ which also undermine theeffectiveness of organisations.

In studies of the British industrialrevolution, the process of cultural changeinvolved in altering patterns of workbehaviour has been well documented(Thompson 1991). As has been noted above,the economic development from feudal tomarket oriented production wasaccompanied by changes in work culture.In this process, culture was both a tool ofchange and of resistance to it over a periodof centuries (Thompson 1983:101–6). A majordifference in the experience of those nationsattempting a contemporary move to marketoriented production is that the speed withwhich the process is being pursued leaveslittle room for gradual changes in culture.So there is typically a conflict betweencultural attitudes in society at large andthose required within work organisations.In one sense the entire evolution ofmanagement thought can be seen as a searchfor conceptual frameworks to assistorganisations’ adaptation to internal andexternal contingencies (Wren 1987:390). Yetthe challenge posed by cultural attitudes atvariance with organisational need remainslargely unanswered, and managementtheorists continue to bemoan the lack of‘substantive cross-cultural theories of work

behaviour and attitudes’ (Cambell et al.1993:1) to assist in addressing the practicalproblems this causes for management.Meanwhile, practitioners seeking betterways of managing employees in situationsof economic development report that thereare often major cultural gaps between thework organisation and its employees, withthe former being driven by imperatives ofmarket rationality and managerial controlwhile the latter seem, to many managers atleast, to be mired in traditional attitudeswhich often undermine both managerialauthority and workplace productivity(McGavin 1996).

Management commentary on culture hashistorically been more concerned withorganisational culture understood as ‘thecompany way of doing things or itsphilosophy, style or spirit…transmitted bya process of socialisation’ (Blunt 1986:115).In the last decade, however, a noticeablechange has occurred. One aspect of this isseen in the unease expressed in relation tothe inherent biases towards a managementviewpoint arising in some of the morenarrowly based studies of organisationalculture. Not only did such studies run thedanger of replicating this bias but they mayalso be seen to have contributed to itsperpetuation. The necessity for ‘socialculture’ to become part of organisationalanalysis can be seen in contemporaryarguments for ‘broadening the definition ofculture to specifically include theoperational environment and ambientsociety’ (Allaire and Firsiroto 1994:209).

This ‘social culture’, however, mayinclude a bewildering variety of sub-culturesdepending on the basis of identification,



with gender, ethnicity, language, religion,caste, class, and region playing obviousroles. It may nonetheless be possible toidentify broader cultural characteristics thatdo impinge upon work within a particularcommunity. One such generalisation notedabove and emphasised by manycommentators from ‘developing’ countriesconcerns the extent of collectivism in non-Western cultures, which stands in sharpcontrast to much ‘modern’ managementpractice based on an individualismcharacteristic of US and other ‘Western’nations but much less powerful outside ofthese cultural contexts (Jocano 1990:2; Venteand Chen 1980).

To illustrate the point, a brief attempt ismade here to identify some of thoseculturally engendered attitudes which haveposed problems for the management oflabour in a handful of nations undergoingprocesses of rapid economic development.2

While this is unsatisfactory to the extent thatthese are complex phenomena which arehere reduced to almost school textbooksimplicity, it does serve the purpose ofindicating in a more concrete manner someof the perimeters of the impact of socialculture on work in at least a handful ofnations.

Indonesia

Kerukunan (harmony) and nrimo(submissiveness) are two typically Javaneseconcepts, which have been seen asimpacting on work behaviour. While thereare many other cultures within Indonesia,the influence of attitudes rooted intraditional Javanese practices seemparticularly determinative of work attitudes

in larger organisations and especially in thepublic sector, where Javanese dominance ofpolitical power translates into prominenceat most levels of organisational leadership.As one non-Javanese Indonesian informantput it ‘in the Department we all act likeJavanese’.

The concept of kerukunan encapsulatesthe necessity of acting in a way conduciveto the maintenance of society through unity.This is not so much a positive striving forunity as an active avoidance of actions thatwill disturb harmony—regardless of theindividual’s ‘real’ feelings. So a propositionmay be rejected by answering ‘yes’ ratherthan ‘no’, because such an answer does notdisturb harmony, with the ‘real’ picture notbeing clear until action is required. In thepractical management environment it maytherefore be quite inappropriate formanagers to speak directly. So, when givingorders or correcting subordinates, managersmay require a more subtle approach; forinstance, reminding the person toconsider—‘what if we do it this way...’(Geertz 1961:146).

Nrimo involves accepting everythingwithout protest. It is not so much a positionof apathy as a rational response that avoidsexcessive pain or useless challenge. This hasa considerable ideological history in whichacceptance is seen as an active responsewhich breaks the ‘diabolic’ cycle of fear forthe future and regret for the past (Bonneff1994). For work behaviour, the problems thisposes arise from the view that wealth isillusory and not worth striving for(Hardjowiroyo 1983), overlaid with anIslamic view that hard work is notefficacious because everything is



determined by God. The effects on employeemotivation have been noted as includinglack of assertiveness (Sunyoto 1995:120), lowlabour turnover, high levels of cooperation,little need for achievement, strong need forsocial affiliation, and lack of initiative(Taruna 1987:43). Additional organisationalconsequences were said by informants toinclude poor workplace communication anda reliance on personal status rather thanlogical argument in decisionmakingprocesses.

The Philippines

Pakikisama (togetherness) is a central conceptof Filipino social life, most literallytranslated as ‘to accompany or go alongwith’ (Lynch 1964:8–9), and reflects a desirefor smooth interpersonal relationships. Itresults in an avoidance of conflict and incommunication which involves extravagantpraise, metaphor rather than frankness,smiling and not losing one’s temper(Guthrie 1968:63). Pakikisama has similarimplications to the Javanese attitudesmentioned above, particularly in respect ofyielding to the will of a leader despite one’sown ideas (Andres 1981:17). It leads to a‘constrained conformity’ in which, whilesilence is not consent (Jocano 1990:3–4), thereare severe limitations placed on the exerciseof individual initiative.

At a more subtle level, the effort to ensureharmony might result in behaviour whichis incomprehensible outside the Filipinovalue system. So, for instance, to laugh whena fellow worker makes a mistake, far fromshowing a lack of sympathy, ‘is actuallyhelping the person assuage the pain ofembarrassment by putting the mistake in a

humorous context’ (Jocano 1990:4). On theother hand, efforts to curb anti-socialattitudes may result in not allowing privacyand in talking issues through wheresomeone is out of line (Andres 1981:45). Thelatter in particular has been seen as havingpositive implications for cooperativeworking relations, while the former is seenin the high regard accorded leaders who areapproachable and are able to win theconfidence of a team through demonstratingtheir concern for the welfare of its members(Jocano 1990:56).

The familiarism and personalism whichaffects employees has also been noted asimpacting on the practices of Filipinomanagers. Recruitment in particular isaffected so that ‘jobs are advertised but inthe final decision…it could be a friend, theregion-mate, the Kompadre…or the familyreferral who is given the job’ (Aganon1994:31). Similarly, managerial evaluation ofemployee performance may appear to havemore to do with personal relationships thanwith ‘objective’ criteria. In fact, in thiscultural setting the distinction familiar in‘Western’ thinking between personal(subjective) and professional (objective)judgement is much less clear.

To put it another way, in an individualistcultural setting, where the aphorism ‘don’ttake it personally’ is a cultural norm, theFilipino stress on personalised relationshipswould make no sense. Here, however, to actin any other way would make no sensebecause personal relationships have priority.So Filipino commentators seeking to explainthe motives of their compatriots’ behaviourhave concluded that ‘Filipinos tend to bepersonal in all their dealings thus actions



and messages are given personalinterpretations which affect business andworking relationships’ (Gapuz and Lozada1990:3). This makes criticism of performancea difficult task as any criticism is likely to beperceived as a real personal insult (Jocano1992:22), while a positive evaluation ofperformance may well be interpreted interms of personal affection rather thanprofessional judgement (Cruz 1990:51).

The collectivism at the heart of pakikisamais also seen in concepts of damayan(involvement) and bayanih an (cooperation)which bring people together to accomplishtasks requiring group action. Wheremanagement is able to build on this throughteamwork and competition between teamsit has been seen as having positive effectson productivity (de Leon 1987:33–34).Equally, however, it may operate to limit thesignificance of work in the lives ofindividuals who draw their confidence fromtheir standing in their group of friends orbarkada (Jocano 1990:25) rather than fromtheir contribution to the objectives of workorganisations.

The social sanction operating in theFilipino sense of shame, hiya, is also seen ashaving a direct limiting effect on the capacityof managers where collective pressuremakes ‘avoiding personal affronts whichcould put a person in a socially unacceptableposition’ imperative (de Leon 1987:29). Thishas been observed as leading to a style oforganisational communication in whicheuphemism and ‘double talk’ are common(Roces and Roces 1992:40 [1993??]) andwhere persuasion is preferred overargument which may offend personal

sensibilities (Jocano 1992:11). So in asituation, for instance, in which managersare called on to provide feedback onemployees’ performance the type of opinionexpressed publicly may focus primarily onmaintaining self-esteem and inter-personalrelations rather than on organisationalobjectives (Roces and Roces 1992:40).

The dynamic nature of culture, however,ensures that other interpretations are alsopossible. One of particular interest in thiscontext is the attempt to locate religioussignificance in the traditional culturalconcepts (Gorospe 1966). Here bayanihanbecomes not only cooperation but alsocommunity spirit. So the reciprocity of utangna loob, the ‘debt of gratitude’ (Jocano 1992:3–7) which forges ‘a strong sense of personaland emotional obligation’ (Roces and Roces1992:41 [1993?]; de Leon 1987:29) may beseen as a negative in Western commentaryand management literature. Gorospe,however, presents it as a manifestation ofChristian thoughtfulness for others.Similarly the fatalism of bahala na, againoften seen as having a demotivating effecton individuals, becomes valuable as a trustin God.

The consequences of Filipino culture forwork organisation have been summarisedby foreign observers in terms of low levelsof trust, the need for close supervision,central decisionmaking and the avoidanceof conflict (Richards 1993:362). For Filipinocommentators, however, the factors whichappear so negative to an outsider havepositive value. Jocano, for example, arguesthat the implications of cultural familiarismare simply that work relationships rather



than work functions are of primaryimportance in the Philippines culturalsetting. He concludes that

[e]ffective management is a function of thecongruence of the modern andprofessional management used in thecorporation and the elements of culture inthe environment in which the corporationoperates…[while] within the corporation,effective management is a function of thefit in the perceptions and expectationsmanagers and workers have of each other(Jocano 1990:15).

Thailand

Western commentary on Thai organisationalbehaviour has focused firmly on the role ofsocial status in determining workrelationships and roles (Siffin 1966:240). Thisis particularly so in respect of the publicsector, where a lack of bottom upcommunication has been noted as limitingthe usefulness of information available tomanagers (Haas 1979:30), while employees’grievances of fester as unarticulated sourcesof demotivation (Shor 1962).

More recent work has focused on the roleof seniority in decisionmaking. This is seenas limiting the extent of accountabilitybecause there is no requirement for decisionsto be logical or open to debate (Redding1993:223). The decisions of senior officialsare accepted as correct because they are thedecisions of senior officials. Added to thisabsolute authority is the fact that workrelationships are more reflective of personalthan of organisational realities so that theemployee and the manager never stand in apurely professional relationship (Redding1993:226).

In discussions with Thai managersseveral overlapping factors, located incultural attitudes, emerge as constraints toorganisational reform. The first is seniority.Schregle has argued that what actuallyhappens in Asian work organisations ingeneral is that family style relationships arereproduced with the manager in the role ofparent and the employees in the role ofchildren (Schregle 1982:131). While notwishing to retreat to this level ofreductionism it certainly seems true that inThai work organisations, as informants putit, ‘docility is more prized than ability’ and‘submission to power is highly valued forthe achievement of career advancement’,while ‘innovation involves fear of reprisal’.

A second factor is that the legitimacy oforganisational authority is strengthened bystrong national sentiment regardingmonarchical forms of governance (Sutton1962:9). Informants explain this in terms ofthe high regard in which Thais hold theircurrent monarch and the historical status ofmonarchy in having successfully protectedThais from the costs of political insecurityso evident in neighbouring nations. Oneresult evident in Thai commentary is thatsubmission to authority is seen as a prizedpersonal characteristic (Ruktham 1981:23).This may be reinforced by a Buddhistreligious attitude in which organisationalsuperiors, like the King himself, are seen asbeings who have reached a higher level ofconsciousness through the process of lifeand re-birth (Vachirakajorn 1988:89).

At one level this legitimises the creationof highly centralised organisationalstructures which impede information flowand stifle initiative (Haas 1979:31). One



result, from a ‘development’ standpoint, isthat district officers responsible for theimplementation of development policieshave little real power and must rely on theirpersonal relationships with seniorheadquarters officials to advance the causeof ‘their’ districts (Haas 1979:46). So the‘development’ imperatives ofdecentralisation face an additional hurdle inthe cultural imperatives towards centralisedhierarchical control.

The organisational results of theseapproaches to authority are said to includethe fact that lower status employees cannotcommunicate effectively with theirsuperiors because of the distance betweenthem, while the senior bureaucrats officiate‘like feudal landlords’ whose rights toexercise authority need not be related toperformance or subject to accountability(Ruktham 1981:104). On one side of the workrelations equation this might result inmanagers being unwilling to openly criticiseemployees because of the breach of thepersonal relationship this would entail(Ruktham 1981:120). On the other hand,employees are seen as fearful of expressingnon-conformity and therefore reluctant tomake their views known (Pugh 1993:93). Theimplications in terms of communication,including performance evaluation andfeedback, are obvious and captured by oneThai manager ’s inquiry, ‘whatcommunication?’.

A third constraint, often remarked byforeign observers, is nepotism. Ruktham’sexample of the university management inwhich a new chancellor ’s friends weregradually appointed to all senior positionsmay not seem remarkable to academics

internationally. What may seem moreremarkable is his observation that this trendextended to ‘scholarly’ criticism with therelationship of an author or seminarpresenter to the chancellor becoming a factorin the scrutiny to which the work wassubjected (Ruktham 1981:15). Perhaps, asthose who adopt Hofstede’s approach haveargued, in a ‘feminine’ society in which thepersonal relationship is always moreimportant than the organisational objective,this is inevitable (Schermerhorn et al. 1997).Haas has a more pragmatic interpretationof Thai bureaucratic nepotism, arguing thatreciprocity cannot be guaranteed withstrangers and that favouritism ensures apositive return only when the parties arebrought within the same organisationalenvironment (Haas 1979:29).

Papua New Guinea

In Papua New Guinea (PNG), a nation ofenormous ethnic diversity with literallyhundreds of languages and ‘cultures’, thosesocial concepts which are common seem togain increased strength, especially in urbanareas where the subtleties of local culturemay be less significant. Wantok is one ofthese. It refers literally to those who speakthe same language. It is used throughoutMelanesia to identify the primary loyalty ofthe individual to clan, language group andregion. In terms of work attitudes there aremany implications of this culturalorientation. Its positive aspect may be seenin a PNG scholar’s definition of it as ‘mutualsupport and co-operation within mutuallyacceptable rules of social and economicbehaviour ’ (Warakai 1989:45). Foreignobservers, on the other hand, have seen



wantokism as involving invidiousresponsibilities, noting particularly theplight of employed Papua New Guineanswho are obliged to give their time andresources to unemployed relatives as a majordisincentive to work at all (Monsell-Davis1993:8).

Wantokism has also been seen asoperating within organisations withdetrimental impacts on decisionmaking,control and communication. Amongst thebehaviours reported by informants are thetendency to favour wantoks in appointmentsand promotions and the strength of informalwork groups based around regionalismwhich have been seen as limiting managerialcontrol. For workers’ organisations this latterphenomenon has been an effective counter-balance to employer authority inorganisations in which workers are largelyfrom the same region. For managers,however, it can be a nightmare, with severalreporting the need to develop forms ofcommunication which take the reality ofsuch informal work groups into account.These mechanisms range from having workgroup leaders who ‘represent’ a given groupfor purposes of communicating withmanagers to having separatecommunication with each of several regionalgroupings within an organisation’sworkforce.

In respect of ‘favouritism’, tambus(literally in-laws) may be even moreproblematic than wantoks. In Papua NewGuinea, tambus are not ‘just the in-laws’ asEuropeans might say. Marriage is a majormeans of bringing clans into harmony andof establishing economic and political links.

A Melanesian’s tambus have an importanceas partners and allies for life. Furthermore,the respect paid them is traditionally seenas ensuring the numbers and health ofchildren, essential to the economic wellbeing of the community and particularly itsolder members, whose physical well-beingis often dependent upon the next generationof labour. The obligation to employ theirtambus and show them the traditionalrespect creates a conflict of interest formanagers which is rarely resolved bysubordinating this customary order ofnecessity to the demands of organisationalobjectives (Ramoi 1986:88).

The continued viability of subsistenceeconomic activity and the strength of thesocial relations that go with it are beyondthe scope of this paper but clearly they causea variety of problems for the managementof Melanesian employees in the form ofdisincentives to work, poor motivation inwork and low levels of organisationalcommitment. The bottom line for manyemployees in this situation is not the needto satisfy a manager but the certainty ‘thatthey can always go back home to the villageor receive food and shelter from their urbankin’ (Levine and Levine 1979:34).

Region-wide factors

Two possible general factors emerge frominformants and the literature as culturalconcepts impacting on work behaviour inall of the nations mentioned above. Theyrevolve around the role of personal statusand the attitudes to time which employeesbring into the workplace from their culturalenvironments.



In each of the countries mentioned aboveit is notable that the normative concepts ofpersonal status are quite different and oftenopposed to those influential in the marketoriented democracies of the ‘West’. In theIndonesian case it was noted that personalstatus was a determinative factor indecisionmaking to the extent that the meritof a viewpoint was considered lessimportant than the status of the individualexpressing it. Similarly, in Thailand,seniority was seen as a vital ingredient indetermining workplace behaviour. Theimplications for management are not merelyto be found in the lack of the individualistethic upon which so much ‘Western’management theory is predicated. It mustalso be recognised that some of the culturalunderpinnings of non-Western behaviouralnorms are positively anti-individualist. Thismay be seen in both the Indonesianorientation to the primacy of social harmonyand in the Thai assertion of submissivenessas a socially desirable characteristic.

The point here is that management theoryand practice which presumes anindividualistic market orientation will tendto locate the dynamics of the workrelationships in organisational oroccupational status. In the many situationsof ‘development’ this may provide aninadequate understanding becauserelationships between individuals and themanner in which they are able to interact inthe workplace are likely to be stronglyinfluenced by their relative social statusderived from non-work environments. Asmentioned above, this may this pose abarrier to effective communication within awork organisation. It may also mean that the

social or ‘personal’ relationship supersedesthe professional or organisationalrelationship in both work and broader socialenvironments. In the case of the Philippinesthis is notable in the tendency to personaliserelationships to the extent that ‘neutral’communication and ‘objective’ judgementbecome quite difficult. In the more clannishsocial environment of Papua New Guineathe blood, marriage or regional relationshipof individuals is similarly likely to supersedemore transient considerations such as anemployment relationship.

The point here is that, whereorganisational practices assume anindividualist rationality in a context inwhich social cultures are ardentlycollectivist, pathologies are likely to emergein both managerial and employee behaviour.

Perhaps the greatest cultural gap,however, between market-orientedorganisations and employees from non-market cultures is seen in attitudes to time.In Papua New Guinea this is captured in theterm ‘maski’, which, depending on thespeaker’s inflection, can connote ‘it doesn’tmatter’, ‘I don’t care’, or ‘leave it until later’.It doesn’t take much though to realise whata deeply non-market or even anti-marketconcept this is. Marx’s identification of thecommodification and exact control of timeas central to the development of capitalismhas served to focus scholarly attention ontime as a vital factor in work organisation(Blyton et al. 1989:3). Just how important itis can be seen from the role the struggle overworking time has played in the historicalrelations between management andemployees internationally (Roediger andFoner 1989; Nyland 1989). Time is also, of



course, a deeply cultural construct. The factthat the basic unit of time in Madagascansociety is 30 minutes and that this is thecustomary length of time it takes to cook riceis no coincidence (Thompson 1991:58).

In each of those cultures dealt with sobriefly above, time has traditionally had asocial rather than a market value. This, likeso many other ‘traditional’ values, is subjectto rapid change, especially in newlyindustrialised and urbanised environments.Beneath pragmatic accommodation to harshrealities, however, there may remain a set ofattitudes that run counter to the needs ofmarket driven economic activity. Thepossibility of this may be seen in as basic anarea as language.

In Indonesian, for example, there is muchless linguistic certainty about time than thereis in English. The English distinctionbetween ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ is simplynot available. Time in Filipino culture isconceived as a succession of moments withno starting or end point (Andres 1981:125).In either case, whether something is donenow or later is a matter of relatively minorconsequence. Nor is there urgency about thecompletion of a piece of work. So Filipinos’describe their own work efforts as ‘ningaincogan’—like a grass fire, starting out full ofvigour but dying down abruptly leaving thework unfinished (Schwenk 1989:17).Similarly, in Melanesia, concepts such aswork time and work attendance have noequivalent in traditional society (McGavin1991:222) and absenteeism attracts none ofthe opprobrium associated with it in marketoriented cultures. So ‘taim bilong wok’ (worktime) remains quite different from ‘taimbilong yumi’ (our own time), and throughoutthe region Pacific time is far from the exact

commodity assumed in market orientedwork organisation.

Conclusion

The ambivalent impact of social culture onwork organisation has been noted at severalpoints in this article. It is clear that severework attitude constraints are experienced byorganisations located in social environmentsfrom which employees and managers alikebring non-market rationalities into theworkplace. While there is no shortage ofcommentary pointing this out, the questionof what to do about it remains.

On the one hand culture can clearly be avehicle for expressing resistance to change.In the Philippines, for instance, culturalfactors have been reported as strengtheninginformal work group consciousness inresistance to managerial initiatives. Torres’study of Quezon City garment workersfound that work played a subordinate roleas a means to the ends of personal life, andemployees expressed anti-managementsentiments using core cultural conceptsarising from familial and communalisticvalues (Torres 1988:140). A similar cultureof resistance was shown in Abueva’s surveyof middle-ranking public servants, in whichthe majority did not see work time asdifferent from personal time and admittedto filling in time sheets dishonestly with noindication that this was seen as ‘wrong’(Abueva 1970:148–49). More direct forms ofresistance based on culturally acceptednotions are evident in Papua New Guinea,where workers’ organisations were formedspecifically on the basis of groupings ofwantoks and employees from the same region(Hess 1992:63).



On the other hand, Filipinocommentators such as Jocano have called onmanagers to make use of culture inmotivating and organising employees. Thismay sound attractive to managers and it hascertainly been a lucrative source ofconsultancies as one of the longest runningmanagement fads. For serious commentary,however, it misses the point. The point is thatthe extent to which social culture is availablefor manipulation may be quite limited.Precisely because culture is not apersonalised product it is difficult to see howit can be used in this way. While culturallyconditioned concepts can be used in thelanguage of management (or marketing!), itis difficult to identify scholarly commentaryreporting broad success in using socialculture to further organisational objectivesexcept where those objectives alreadyaccorded with cultural mores.

The key to this puzzle may lie in therealisation that far from being ‘irrational’and therefore easily changed ormanipulated, the cultural norms which poseconstraints to ‘Western’ style managementalso have a pragmatic face. So, for instance,the ‘nepotism’ of Thai managers who favouracquaintances is very practical simplybecause strangers are less likely to return afavour. Similarly, the favouring of wantoksor relatives in Papua New Guinea has astrong economically rational basis in the factthat they provide an individual’s only realsocial security net. Until work environmentsoffer similar levels of benefit it is unlikelythat behaviour based on the need tomaintain those relationships which havehistorically been effective will lessen. Inshort, work organisations in situations of

‘development’ often face seriouscompetition as sources of both material andsocial status. Low wages, poor employmentsecurity and negligible job-related socialsecurity mean that this is likely to continueto be the case.

For practitioners and scholars thequestion remains one of how managementpractices so thoroughly rooted in the culturalexigencies of the market orienteddemocracies actually operate when they aretransposed into situations of ‘development’.One possibility is for managers to regardculture as farmers may regard the weather.In this metaphor culture can be regarded asvital to the way in which the enterprise isconducted and as constantly present butvariable in impact. It can thus be acceptedas a constraint which managers need to takeinto account but over which they have aslittle power as the farmer has over climaticconditions. Within this frameworkmanagers in situations of ‘development’ inparticular would be seen as needing to orienttheir practices as much to local culturalconditions as possible within an awarenessthat those conditions are products ofpowerful forces which a work organisationcannot change and ought not challenge.

Notes1 Recent innovative work includes Sievers

(1994) and Fox (1994).2 The factors chosen for comment here are

those identified over the last five years byapproximately 200 participants inmanagement courses at the National Centrefor Development Studies, AustralianNational University, as representing major(and for management detrimental) impacts



on work behaviour in their organisations.These course participants have been middleand senior level managers of public sectororganisations in a variety of nations pursuinggoals of economic development. They aretreated in this paper as ‘informants’ butcannot be individually identified. Wherepossible, their anecdotal evidence, gatheredin open-ended group discussions andindividual interviews, has beensupplemented by reference to authoritativecommentary.

References

Abueva, J.V.,1970. ‘Administrative cultureand behaviour and middle civil servantsin the Philippines’, in E.W. Wiedner (ed.),Development Administration in Asia, DukeUniversity Press, Durham:132–86.

Aganon, M.E., 1994. ‘Human resourcemanagement: comparative analysis ofJapanese, Chinese and Western ownedfirms in the Philippines’, in M.S.V.Amarante (ed.), Human ResourceApproaches in the Philippines: a Study ofJapanese, Filipino-Chinese and Western-owned firms, School of Labour andIndustrial Relations, University of thePhilippines, Diliman.

Adler, N.J., 1991. International Dimensions ofOrganisational Behaviour, Kent Publishing,Boston.

Allaire, Y. and Firsiroto, M.E., 1994.‘Theories of organizational culture’,Organizational Studies, 5(3):193–226.

Alston, J.P., 1985. The American Samurai:blending American and Japanesemanagement practices, Walter de Gruyter,Berlin.

Amante, M.S.V., Aganon, M.E. and Ofreneo,R.E., 1992. Japanese Industrial RelationsInterface in the Philippines, School of Laborand Industrial Relations, University ofthe Philippines, Quezon City.

Applebaum, H.A. (ed.), 1984. Perspectives inCultural Anthropology, State University ofNew York Press, Albany, New York.

Bedi, H., 1991. Understanding the AsianManager: working with the movers of thePacific century, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Blunt, P., 1986. Human Resource Management,Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

Blyton, P., Hassard, J., Hill, S. and Starkey,K., 1989. Time, Work and Organisaion,Routledege Kegan Paul, London.

Bonneff, M., 1994. ‘Ki AgengSuryomentaraman: Javanese prince andphilosopher’, Indonesia, 57:49–70.

Campbell, D.J., Bommer, W. and Yeo, Y.,1993. ‘Perceptions of appropriateleadership style: participation versusconsultation across two cultures’, AsiaPacific Journal of Management, 10(1):1–20.

Chen, M.,1995. Asian Management Systems:Chinese, Japanese and Korean styles ofbusiness, Routledge, London.

Cruz, B.B., 1990. ‘The Pinoy’s sense ofhumour both saves and shatters him’, inV.P.Gapuz and C.D. Lozada Jr. (eds), Whoand What is the Pinoy?, 24K,Manila:Pages?.

de Leon, C., 1987. ‘Social categorisation inPhilippine organizations: values towardcollective identity and managementthrough intergroup relations’, Asia PacificJournal of Management, 5(1):28–37.



DuBrin, A.J., 1989. Contemporary AppliedManagement: behavioural science techniquesfor managers and professionals,Homewood, Illinois.

Fox, A., 1980. ‘The meaning of work’, in G.Esland and G. Salaman (eds), The Politicsof Work and Occupations, University ofToronto Press, Toronto:139–91.

Fox, M., 1994. The Reinvention of Work,Harper, San Francisco.

Frenkel, S. and Coolican, A., 1984. UnionsUnder Capitalism? A sociologicalcomparison of the Australian building andmetal workers’ unions, Allen and Unwin,Sydney.

Gapuz, V.P. and Lozada, C.D.Jr. (eds), 1990.Who and What is the Pinoy?, 24K, Manila.

Geertz, H., 1961. The Javanese Family: a studyin kinship and socialisation, The Free Press,Glencoe.

Gorospe, V.R., 1966. ‘Christian renewal ofFilipino values’, Philippines Studies,14(2):219–30.

Gordon, B., 1994. ‘Theological positions andeconomic perspectives in ancientliterature’, in H.G. Brennan and A.M.C.Waterman (eds), Economics and Religion:are they distinct?, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Boston: 237–48.

Guthrie, G. (ed.), 1968. Six Perspectives on thePhilippines, The Bankanak, Manila.

Haas, D.F., 1979. Interaction in the ThaiBureaucracy: structure, culture and socialexchange, Westview Press, Colorado.

Hall, R.H. and Xu, W., 1990. ‘Research note:run silent, run deep—cultural influenceson organizations in the Far East’,Organizational Studies, 11(4):569–76.

Hanada, M. and Yoshikawa, A., 1991. ‘Shopfloor approach to management in Japan’,in M.J. Putti (ed.), Management: Asiancontext, Singapore, McGraw-Hill:36–60.

Hardjowiroyo, Marbangun, 1983. ManusiaJawa, Yayasan Idayu, Jakarta.

Hess, M., 1992. Unions Under EconomicDevelopment: private sector unions in PapuaNew Guinea, Oxford University Press,Melbourne.

Hickson, D.J., 1993. Management in WesternEurope: society, culture and organization intwelve countries, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences:international differences in work relatedvalues, Sage Beverly Hills.

Hofstede, G., 1993. ‘Intercultural conflictand synergy in Europe’, in D.J. Hickson(ed.), Management in Western Europe:society, culture and organisation in twelvenations, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin:1–8.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H., 1988. ‘TheConfucious connection: from culturalroots to economic growth’, OrganisationalDynamics, 16(4):4–21.

Jocano, F.L., 1990. Management By Culture:fine-tuning management to Filipino culture,Punlad Research House, Quezon City.

Jocano, F.L., 1992. Issues and Challenges inFilipino Value Formation, Punlad ResearchHouse, Quezon City.

Johnson, S., 1963. Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage: a modern selection by E.L.McAdam Jr and G. Milne, Pantheon Books,New York.

Keenoy, T., 1985. Invitation to IndustrialRelations, Blackwell, Oxford.

Levine, H.B. and Levine, M.W., 1979.Urbanisation in PNG: a study of ambivalenttownsmen, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Lewin, K., 1947. ‘Frontiers in groupdynamics’, Human Relations, 1:5–41.

Lynch, F., 1964. Four Findings of PhilippineValues, Ateneo de Manila Press, QuezonCity.



McGavin, P.A., 1991. Wages, Incomes andProductivity in Papua New Guinea,Institute of National Affairs, PortMoresby.

McGavin, P.A., 1996. ‘ Trust, discretion andresponsibility: the division of labour inwork, employment and society’, Journalof the British Sociological Association,10(1):1–94.

Monsell-Davis, M., 1993. Safety Net orDisincentive? Wantoks and relatives in theurban Pacific, National Research Institute,Port Moresby.

Moore, B., 1973. The Social Origins ofDictatorship and Democracy: lord andpeasant in the making of the modern world,Penguine, Harmondsworth.

Nanto, D.K., 1988. ‘Management, Japanesestyle’, in S.M. Lee and G. Schwendiman(eds), Management by Japanese Systems,Preager, New York:3–24.

Nyland, C., 1989. Reduced Worktime and theManagement of Production, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Ortigas, C.D. (ed.), 1994. Human ResourceDevelopment—the Philippines experience:readings for the practitioner, Ateneo deManila University Press, Quezon City.

Pinches, M. and Lakha, S. (eds), 1987. WageLabour and Social Change: the proletariat inAsia and the Pacific, Centre for South EastAsian Studies, Monash University,Melbourne.

Pugh, D.S., 1993. ‘Cultural differences inattitudes and values’, in T.D. Weinshall(ed.), Social Culture and Management,Walter de Gruyter, Berlin:87–93.

Ramoi, G., 1986. ‘Ethics and leadership’, inS. Stratigos and J.P. Hughes (eds), TheEthics of Development: the Pacific in thetwenty first century, University of PapuaNew Guinea, Port Moresby.

Redding, S.G., 1993. ‘Cultural effects on themarketing process in South-east Asia’, inT.D. Weinshall (ed.), Social Culture andManagement, Walter de Gruyter,Berlin:217–32.

Richards, D., 1993. ‘Flying against the wind?Culture and management developmentin South East Asia’, in P. Blunt and D.Richards (eds), Readings in Management,Organization and Culture in East and SouthEast Asia, Northern Territory UniversityPress, Darwin:356–71.

Robbins, S.P., 1993. Organizational Theory: thestructure and design of organizations,Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Roces, A. and Roces, G., 1982. Culture Shock!Philippines, Times Books International,Singapore.

Roediger, D.R. and Foner, P.F., 1989. OurOwn Time: a history of American labor andthe working day, Verso Press, London.

Ruktham, A., 1981. Prutikarm Karachakarn(Behaviour of Thai Bureaucrats), OdianStore Press, Bangkok.

Schermerhon, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn,R.N., 1997. Organizational Behaviour, JohnWiley and Sons, New York.

Schregle, J., 1982. Negotiating Development:labour relations in Southern Asia,International Labour Organisation,Geneva.

Schwenk, R.L., 1989. Moral Recovery and theDemocratic Vision in the Philippine Context,SEED Centre, Manila.

Scott, J.C., 1976. The Moral Economy of thePeasant: rebellion and subsistence in SouthEast Asia, Yale University Press, NewHaven.

Shor, E.L., 1962. ‘The public service’, in L.J.Sutton (ed.), Problems of Politics andAdministration in Thailand, Institute ofTraining for Public Service, IndianaUniversity:23–40.



Sievers, B., 1994. Work, Death and Life Itself,de Gruyter, Berlin,.

Siffin, W., 1966. The Thai Bureaucracy,Institutional Change and Development,East–West Centre, Honolulu.

Sunyoto, Agus, 1995. Manajemen SumberDaya Manusia, IPWI, Jakarta.

Sutton, L.J., 1962. ‘Political andadministrative leadership’, in L.J. Sutton(ed.), Problems of Politics andAdministration in Thailand, Institute ofTraining for Public Service, IndianaUniversity:1–22.

Taruna, J.C.T., 1987. Ciri Budaya manusiaJawa, Penerbit Kanisius, Yogyakarta.

Tao Te Ching, 1988. S. Mitchell (trans.), NewYork, Harper and Row.

The Bhagavad Gita, 1962), Harmondsworth,Penguin.

Thompson, E.P., 1991. ‘Time, work disciplineand industrial capitalism’, in E.P.Thompson, Customs in Common, MerlinPress, London.

Thompson, P., 1983. The Nature of Work,Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Torres, A.T., 1988. The Urban Filipino Workerin an Urban Industrializing Society,University of the Phillipines Press,Quezon City.

Vachirakajorn, S., 1988. The Influence ofBhuddism in Thai Administrative Behaviour:a Q study of Thai bureaucracy, UMI,Michigan.

Vente, R.E. and Chen, P.S.J. (eds), 1980.Culture and Industrialisation: an Asiandilemma, McGraw Hill, Singapore.

Warakai, V., 1989. ‘Real life in a changingPNG’, Social Alternatives, 8(2):43–48.

Whitfield, K., 1987. The Australian LabourMarket, Harper and Row, Sydney.

Wren, D., 1987. The Evolution of ManagementThought, Wiley, New York.

Documents

Management and Culture under Development - United …unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/... · · 2013-01-25aspirations in that direction’ ... without which