3. National cultures and management – the emic approach

Learning objectives explain the main criticisms of the etic approach to culture as expressed by emic scholars describe the semiotic perspective to culture understand hermeneutics as a philosophy of science recognize the main features of the ethnographic method of studying culture discuss d’Iribarne’s approach to the cross-cultural study of management and organization describe d’Iribarne’s characterization of management and organization in France, the USA and the Netherlands understand what indigenous management concepts are, and be able to give a number of examples discuss how etic and emic studies of trust in a cross-cultural context complement each other.

Chapter Outline 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Methodological background The semiotic perspective Hermeneutics Methodological issues 3.3 D’Iribarne: Three logics of culture The logics of honour, contract and consensus 3.4 Indigenous management practices Japan Africa China 3.5 Trust as an etic-emic phenomenon Etic Emic 3.6 Conclusions Study questions Further reading Case: Management of phosphate mining in Senegal Case: Americans negotiating a contract in China Notes References

Study questions 1 What is the main criticism of d’Iribarne of Hofstede’s work? Can this criticism be generalized to other etic studies? Explain your answer. 2 Why would a questionnaire study not be an effective research approach from a semiotic perspective on culture? 3 How does Philippe d’Iribarne explain differences in management and organization between comparable plants in different countries? 4 What are the main features of management and organization in France, the USA and the Netherlands according to d’Iribarne? 5 Why is an emic approach necessary to identify indigenous management concepts? 6 Please give examples of indigenous management concepts from Japan, China and Africa. 7 Explain trust in a cross-cultural context from both an etic and an emic perspective.