Some cultural considerations for applying the Learning Organization model to Iranian Organizations

1
Some cultural considerations for applying the
Learning Organization model to Iranian
Organizations

• Seyyed Babak Alavi

John McCormick
School of Education, University of New South
Wales
2
General questions

• What cultural factors may facilitate or hinder
  applying the Learning Organization model across
  countries?
• What aspects of Iranian culture may be important
  when applying the Learning Organization model?

3
Cross-cultural analysis of management theories

• Aspects of some management theories, which have
  come from some more industrialized countries, may
  not completely be consistent with the cultural
  characteristics of other countries.
• This recognition has encouraged some researchers
  to examine some management theories and models
  from cultural perspectives (e.g., Galperin and
  Lituchy, 1999 Hofstede, 1980, 1993, 2001 Perry,
  1997).

4
Structure of the paper

• literature and research on the Learning
  Organization (LO) model and cross-cultural
  psychology are integrated to develop a
  theoretical framework to argue why some aspects
  of the LO model may not be consistent with some
  cultures. This issue will specifically be
  analyzed for Iranian organizations.

• Some theoretical arguments and propositions are
  developed for further empirical investigations.

5
Learning Organizations

• The LO model proposed by Senge (1990) has five
  disciplines systems thinking, personal mastery,
  mental models, team learning, and shared visions.
• Senge (1990) suggested that development of these
  five disciplines enhances an organizations
  capacities for highly effective changes and
  actions (Senge, 1990 Senge et al., 1994 Senge
  et al. , 1999).

6
Systems thinking

• briefly refers to a holistic approach to
  identifying the dynamic relationships between
  different components of a phenomenon.

• Systems thinking should be practiced in teams
  rather than individually, because the
  effectiveness of systems thinking may highly
  depend on taking as many perspectives as possible
  into account (Senge et al., 1994).

7
Personal mastery

• briefly refers to the learning processes of
  expanding personal capacity and continually
  improving ones level of proficiency in order to
  achieve goals (Senge et al., 1994).

8
Mental models

• briefly refers to those cognitive structures,
  which are related to peoples assumptions,
  beliefs, and implicit theories about themselves,
  others, and events (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993
  Senge, 1990).

• Senge and colleagues (1994), with respect to the
  mental model theory in cognitive psychology
  (Johnson-Laird, 1983) and the double-loop
  learning model (Argyris, 1982), suggested that
  peoples mental models are important factors in
  forming their decisions and actions.

9
Shared visions

• refers to developing shared images of the future
  and guiding practices by which people hope to
  achieve their desires (Senge et al., 1994).
• Shared visions may improve collective actions in
  terms of peoples commitments to their goals and
  organizational actions (Schein, 1993 Senge,
  1990).

10
Team learning

• briefly refers to continually enhancing
  collective capacities by collectively exchanging
  and processing ideas.
• is based on the belief that the collective wisdom
  of a team is greater than that of individual
  members.
• Two skills have been emphasized for team learning
  (Senge et al., 1994)
• Reflection refers to slowing down our thinking
  processes to become more aware of how we form our
  mental models (p. 237).
• Inquiry refers to holding conversations where
  we openly share views and develop knowledge about
  each others assumptions (p. 237).

11
GLOBE Project

• The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
  Effectiveness project (GLOBE), has been conducted
  in 61 countries (House et al., 2002).
• The aim of this project was to investigate the
  existence of universally acceptable and
  universally unacceptable leadership attributes
  and to identify those attributes that are culture
  specific (Dastmalchian et al., 2001 537).

12
Some cultural dimensions in the GLOBE project

• Societal collectivism
• In-group collectivism
• Power distance
• Future orientation
• Assertiveness
• Human orientation

13
Collectivism

• Two different types of collectivism, societal
  collectivism and in-group collectivism were
  distinguished (House et al., 2002).
• Societal collectivism referred to the degree to
  which organizational and societal institutional
  practices encourage and reward collective
  distribution of resources and collective action
  (House et al., 2002 5).
• In-group collectivism was defined as the degree
  to which individuals express pride, loyalty and
  cohesiveness in their organizations or families
  (House et al., 2002 5).

14
In-group and out-group

• In-group refers to a collective in which members
  are highly interdependent and have a sense of
  common fate. In contrast, groups to which they do
  not belong are out-groups.
• According to Triandis (1995), people in
  collectivistic societies tend to belong to a few
  in-groups with great commitment and loyalty.
• People in individualistic societies may belong to
  many in-groups, but their relationships with
  other group members tend to be looser than for
  collectivists.

15
Markus and Kitayama (1991)

• Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggested that people
  in collectivistic societies are more likely to
  take their relatedness with others into account
  when describing themselves they have an
  interdependent construal of self.
• On the other hand, people in individualistic
  cultures are more likely to emphasize their
  uniqueness, rather than their connectedness with
  others.

16
Gudykunst and colleagues (1996)

• Gudykunst and colleagues (1996) showed that
  subjects with higher self-interdependence
  believed that they had to take others feelings
  into account to avoid offending behaviors. They
  also exhibited tendencies to hide their feelings
  in communication in order to maintain harmony in
  the in-group.
• On the other hand, subjects with higher
  self-independence emphasized openness and
  precision in communication more. In addition,
  they were more inclined to show their personal
  feelings in communication.

17
Power distance

• briefly refers to the degree to which members of
  an organization or society expect and agree that
  power should be unequally shared (House et al.,
  2002 5).
• Hofstede (1980 2001) argued that both superiors
  and subordinates accept the power distance.

18
Future orientation

• refers to the degree to which individuals in
  organizations or societies engage in
  future-oriented behaviors such as planning,
  investing in the future, and delaying
  gratification (House et al., 2002 6).

19
Iranian managers in the GLOBE project

• Three hundred Iranian middle managers from three
  industries, banking, telecommunications, and food
  processing, participated in the study
  (Dastmalchian et al., 2001).
• Iranian managers reported high levels of in-group
  collectivism and power distance and low levels of
  societal collectivism and future orientation.

20
Power distance and reflection

• People may have difficulty critically analyzing
  their own thinking processes when obedience is
  emphasized and valued in a culture with high
  level of power distance (Hofstede, 2001).
• When power distance is high, people may be
  expected and required to make their ideas
  consistent with powerful individuals ideas
  rather than critically examine their own
  cognitive processes.
• Proposition 1 Reflection is likely to be less
  effective in organizations which are embedded in
  cultures with high power distance.

21
Power distance and inquiry

• As Senge (1990) argued, openness is the crucial
  element of team learning. Openness may encourage
  people to exchange their ideas and also take
  others ideas into account (Gibson, 2001 Senge,
  1990 Schein, 1993).
• Given that obedience is highly emphasized in
  cultures with high power distance (Hofstede,
  2001 House et al., 2002), it is argued that when
  people communicate in a context with high power
  distance, they may have difficulty expressing
  their ideas openly and use inquiry in order to
  identify each others assumptions (Senge, 1990
  Senge et al., 1994).
• Proposition 2 Inquiry is likely to be less
  effective in organizations which are embedded in
  cultures with high power distance.

22
Power distance and systems thinking

• When power distance is high, who wants what may
  become more important than what is right. This
  may undermine the collaborative nature of
  effective systems thinking in teams, considering
  different perspectives of a situation or problem
  (Senge et al., 1994).
• Proposition 3 Systems thinking in teams is
  likely to be less effective in organizations
  which are embedded in cultures with high power
  distance.

23
Societal collectivism and system thinking

• Systems thinking as a collaborative process may
  face more difficulties in organizations which are
  embedded in cultures with lower societal
  collectivism.
• Working in teams for systems thinking can be
  more problematic if people live in a culture in
  which collective actions are rarely encouraged.
• Proposition 4 Systems thinking in teams is
  likely to be less effective in organizations
  which are embedded in cultures with low societal
  collectivism.

24
In-group collectivism and systems thinking

• Collectivists are more likely to distinguish
  between in-groups and out-groups. This may be
  problematic when some team members are identified
  as out-group members by others members. This may
  undermine systems thinking which requires teams
  to take different perspectives into account.
• Collectivists may need much more time to develop
  functional interpersonal relationships with other
  team members who may be perceived as out-group
  members (Watson et al., 2002).
• This may be more problematic in larger
  organizations which consist many groups.
• Proposition 5 Systems thinking in teams is
  likely to be less effective in organizations
  which are embedded in cultures with high in-group
  collectivism, when team members are from
  different groups.

25
In-group collectivism and reflection

• collectivists are more likely than individualists
  to judge the appropriateness of their behaviors
  in a given social context based on social norms
  and values (Triandis, 1995).
• Therefore, during communication, people from
  collectivistic cultures may greatly concentrate
  on the activation of those cognitive schemas,
  which determine their socially acceptable and
  expected behaviors.
• The simultaneous attention to both contextual
  factors and reflection may be cognitively
  difficult, especially in collectivistic cultures
  in which attention to norms, values, and
  interpersonal relations are highly emphasized
  (Hofstede, 2001 Triandis, 1995).
• Proposition 6 Reflection is likely to be less
  effective in organizations which are embedded in
  cultures with high in-group collectivism.

26
Future orientation and shared visions

• people in societies with higher
  future-orientation may be more likely to practice
  building personal and shared visions.
• Proposition 7 Developing shared visions is
  likely to be less effective in organizations
  which are embedded in cultures with low future
  orientation.

27
Applying the LO model in Iranian organizations

• Applying the LO model may be more successful in
  those Iranian organizations which have
• low power distance
• less emphasis on distinguishing between in-group
  and out-group
• encouraging culture for collective actions such
  as teamwork.
• Iranian managers tendencies to decrease the
  level of power distance can be an opportunity to
  practice teamwork and employees empowerment.

28
Some hypotheses for further empirical studies

• H1 Reflection is likely to be less effective in
  organizations which are embedded in cultures with
  high power distance.
• H2 Inquiry is likely to be less effective in
  organizations which are embedded in cultures with
  high power distance.
• H3 Systems thinking in teams is likely to be
  less effective in organizations which are
  embedded in cultures with high power distance.
• H4 Systems thinking in teams is likely to be
  less effective in organizations which are
  embedded in cultures with low societal
  collectivism.
• H5 Systems thinking in teams is likely to be
  less effective in organizations which are
  embedded in cultures with high in-group
  collectivism, when team members are from
  different groups.
• H6 Reflection is likely to be less effective in
  organizations which are embedded in cultures with
  high in-group collectivism.
• H7 Developing shared visions is likely to be
  less effective in organizations which are
  embedded in cultures with low future orientation.

29
Conclusions

• Management models may not successfully be applied
  without understanding their cultural foundations.
• At the cultural level, applying the LO model in
  Iranian organizations may be less successful than
  some other countries with higher societal
  collectivism and future orientation and lower
  power distance and in-group collectivism.
• At the organizational level, Iranian
  organizations may be more successful applying the
  LO model if some cultural issues such as power
  distance, in-group collectivism, and future
  orientation are considered.
• Cultural issues need to be considered when
  developing or choosing appropriate management
  models for Iranian organizations.
• Some empirical studies at the cultural and
  organization levels are necessary to test the
  developed propositions.