Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Culture and

Behaviour
Maurice Yolles (prof.m.yolles@gmail.com)
Liverpool John Moores University

Invited paper - Increasing Competitiveness or Regional, National and

International Market Development - New Challenges, September, 4 - 6,
2007, Ostrava
Abstract
CulturalmappingapproachesasoriginatedbyHofstedehavebecomeimportanttounderstanding
thenatureandimpactofcultures.Anexplorationofculturalmappingismade,andhowthishas
ledtoempiricalstudiesisindicated.TheHofstedeetalstudyonthemanifestationofcorporate
cultureisconsidered,andrelatedinbrieftotheknowledgecyberneticsschema,whichrepresents
aholonicviewoftheautonomousorganisationthatseesitasawholeratherthanasasetof
parts.SomelimitationsoftheHofstedeetalfindingsasamanifestationofculturearealsobriefly
exploredwithinthiscontext.
1. Introduction
Culturalmappingapproachesthatenabledistinctculturestobecomparedwerepopularisedby
Hoftede(1980, 1987, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2002).Hofstedes (1994) model adopts a four level
ontological theory, and uses four (and later five) dimensions of measurement to classify culture.
His base proposition that arise from a computing metaphor is that culture is a collective
programme of the minds of a coherent group that differentiates them from other groups.
Understanding culture and cultural differentiation has therefore become an important task from
others like Hall (1984), Trompenaars (1997), Schwartz (1994), House et al (2002), and more
recently Yolles (2007).
Exploring the general dynamics of culture has been an academic activity for much of the 20 th
Century (e.g., Sorokin, 1939-1942). However, creating classifications of culture that enable it to be
decomposed in to generic elements that can be used to map any individual culture has been a
more recent interest, seriously since the 1980s. The notion of cultural mapping, however, seems to
stem from an earlier time, with the quote by Kluckhohn (1962, pp317-318; cited by Hofstede,
2001): "In principle ... there is a generalized framework that underlies the more apparent and
striking facts of cultural relativity. All cultures constitute so many somewhat distinct answers to
essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by the generalities of the human
situation. ... Every society's patterns for living must provide approved and sanctioned ways for
dealing with such universal circumstances as the existence of two sexes; the helplessness of infants;
the need for satisfaction of the elementary biological requirements such as food, warmth, and sex;
the presence of individuals of different ages and of differing physical and other capacities.
Hofstede et at (1990) have also been interested in the manifestations of corporate culture in
organisations. His rationale for this is an ontology that explores the connection between values and
their manifestations through heroes, rituals, and symbols, and practices that are hero, ritual and
symbol rich. In doing this he adopts a model by Deal and Kennedy that explores the relationship
between corporate risk and reward. While the study that results from this inquiring into corporate
culture was path breaking, on reflection one must ask if the model represents sufficient about the
manifestations of corporate culture. To undertake this exploration we shall look at the study
through the lens of a new paradigm, that of knowledge cybernetics (KC).

2. Culture and Paradigms

Hofstede (1991) called culture the software of the mind that forms through learned patterns of
thinking, feeling and acting. His ideaofcultureasacollectiveprogrammingconnectshuman
nature,whichisneitherprogrammednorprogrammable,totheindividualspersonalitywhichis
programmable.
So how is personality programmable? Personality is an individuals characteristic pattern of
thought, emotion, and behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms (hidden or not)
behind those patterns (Funder, 1997, pp.1, 2), and is a property of the individual. Personality is
developed during a process of socialisation, in which individuals learn the culture of the social
collective in which they are a part, and how to respond to it. People are allindividualintheway
theyseetheworld,andhowtheydosodetermineshowtheyrespondtobehaviour/actionswithin
it.Asaresulttheydevelopapersonalworldviewthatisprogrammedbytheirlifeexperiencesand
liesatthebaseoftheirpersonality.Astheirbeliefs,valuesandattitudeschange,sodoestheir
personalworldviewandthisaffectstheirunderstandingofreality.
Worldview may therefore be seen as a personalised elaboration of culture that underpins
personalitydevelopment.Assuchitisageneratorofpersonalknowledgethatarisesfromboth
learningexperienceanditsinterpretation.Worldviewisrepresentedthroughlanguageusinga
cognitivespaceofconcepts,patternsofknowledgeandmeanings.Ithasapersonalisedcognitive
beliefsystem,andbothanormativeandacognitivecontrolofbehaviour(oraction).Inother
wordsworldviewisapersonalisedreflectionofculturewithpatternsofexperientialandlearned
individualconceptualandpracticalknowledge thatdirectly affectssocial andotherformsof
behaviour.
Worldview may also be shared within a social collective forming a collective worldview. Here,
every individual in the collective retains their own realities, while using collective patterns of
knowledge to share meaning. All the attributes of personal worldview are also applicable to the
collective, when its personal attributes are replaced by normative ones.
While personal worldviews are normally informal (or unexpressed), collective worldviews may be
either formal or informal. A formalised collective worldview is a paradigm, when more or less the
normative: belief system is expressed, patterns of conceptual and practical knowledge are visible to
others, and expectations of behaviour (or practice) are explicitly identified. The members of a
particular paradigm tend to be restricted in their practice to collective expectations of behaviour.
Thus for example, in the science paradigm there are ways of doing things and those who do not
follow prescription undertake bad science which is decried as unacceptable with those who
transgress being excluded. In another instance, corporate employees who do not follow expected
operative practice associated with their departmental paradigm will be dismissed if the
contravention is considered to be serious.
Thewordcultureasweuseithereisanabstracttermthatcanbedefinedintermsofanumberof
attributesthatarerelativelystableandnormative (orshared).These attributesare:language,
socialbehaviour,andacognitivebeliefsystem(attitudes,valuesandbeliefs).Thebeliefs are
conceived to have three components (Rokeach, 1968): cognitive, representing knowledge with
degrees of certainty more generally cognition is of the mind, the faculty of knowing, perceiving
or conceiving; affective, since a belief can arouse an affect centred around an object; and
behavioural since the consequence of a belief is action.
Beliefs are a determinant for not only behaviour, but also values and attitudes. Values (Rokeach,
1968, p124) are abstract ideas representing a persons beliefs about ideal modes of conduct and
ideal terminal goals. Attitude (Rokeach, 1968, p112) is an enduring organisation of beliefs around
an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner. Beliefs, values, and
attitudes have a special place together. Beliefs are contained in an attitude, and attitudes occur
within a larger assembly of attitudes. The collections of beliefs, attitudes and values are referred to
2

by Rokeach as cognitive organisation, but here we shall refer to this assembly as a belief system.
The belief system also acts as an imperative for behaviour.
Patterns of shared collective social knowledge are generated within culture, and operate to
underpinculturalmeanings.Theyareformulatedinpartbypropositionsthatarisefromthebelief
system. Cultural attributes are not consciously adopted but are rather internalised within a
society.Asaresultsocialbehaviourisconditionedbythelimitsofwhatconstituteculturally
acceptablebehaviour (Hall,1983).We onlybecome awareoftheconditioning whenwe are
severelychallenged,forinstanceininterculturalsituations.
Hofstedes notion of practices and its relationship with values, norms, attitudes and behaviour
really requires further examination. The idea of practice within stable groups of people was an
interest of Kuhn in his exploration of the paradigm (Figure 1). When we speak of the paradigm we
are usually interested in normative behaviour. This is distinct from organised group behaviour or
action that is not part of the paradigm but is dependent on it. It is cognitive organisation (of
attitudes, values and beliefs) operating together with the basic set of assumptions, logic, and
normative behaviour that enables organised activity to occur. Paradigms offer a framework that
determines how the organisation should operate, and what it considers to be important for its
decision making and its activities. It is therefore practice centred. It is not only normative
behaviour that is important, but patterns of behaviour since the paradigm governs, in the first
instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners (Kuhn, 1970, p180). The
paradigm holders are likely practitioners that carry out actions and have behaviour that fit modes
of practice. Such modes of practice occur with the development of patterns of behaviour in which
group norms arise with ordering processes of behaviour that have been conditioned by culture. This
ordering process may be an indication of the collective personality of the group. While culture is
defined bya relativelystablenormativelanguageandcognitivebeliefsystem,italsoinvolves
normativesocialbehaviourthatcanbeexpressedintermsofpractice.Sowhatistheconnection
betweenparadigmaticpracticeandculture?
Culture
Attitudes

Beliefs

Normative
standards

Behaviour (as practice)

& communications

Values

Language

Cognitive Space
Concepts, knowledge & meaning
to construct behaviour.
Propositional base,
exemplars.

Paradigm

Figure 1: The nature of the paradigm with its orientation towards practice
Since the paradigm has a cultural base, it also has a language associated with it that enables the
ideas of those within the group to be expressed. There is a body of theory that tells us that culture
and language are closely related (Yolles, 1998). In the study of natural languages the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis (Giglioli, 1972) explains that there is a relativistic relationship between language
structure and culture. It in particular relates to the communication of ideas between members of the
group. This line of thought is also supported, for instance, by Habermas (1979), and by Maturana
(1988) and the ideas contained within the subject of autopoiesis (Mingers, 1995, p79). Here,
language is considered to be an activity embedded in the ongoing flow of actions, rather than a
3

purely descriptive thing. It therefore has the attributes of activity that occur within a sociocultural
environment to which it responds.
Language operates as an enabling mechanism for the paradigmatic group. Since communications is
central to the ability of the group to work, language may be seen as a way of enabling a class of
paradigmatic explanations to be generated. The framework of thought that develops within the
group is cultural and will therefore be reflected in the language used to transmit those ideas. The
propositional base of the paradigm that lies at its foundation will determine the language of the
group, just as the language itself develops this base.
Organisations have their own collective paradigm underpinned by their own organisational macroculture. They are normally structured into occupational units (e.g., a department of finance or
production), which have local paradigms underpinned by their own local micro-culture. This
differentiation into a plurality of organisational paradigms often causes problems in communication
and operational cohesion (Yolles, 1999). Since paradigms are culturally based, it follows that the
relationship between an organisations paradigm and those of its departments stems from the
interconnection between the organisational culture and departmental cultures.
3. Cultural Ontology
Cultureinfluencesnotonlyhowindividualsbehave,butalsohowtheyperceiveandunderstand
the social behaviour of others (SpencerOatey, 2000). This occurs because during cultural
developmentpatternsofsocialknowledgearecreatedwhichareeffectiveinestablishingshared
meanings.Thesharingprocessiscallednormative:thusforinstance,inagivenculturethereare
normative(orshared)valuesinwhichcertainobjectsbecometreasuresorsocialicons.Theicons
willnotbecommontoothercultureswithdifferentnormativevalues.Thusforinstance,during
theChineseCulturalRevolution,ChairmanMauslittleredbookbecameaniconforlifestyleof
acoregroupofChinese.MorerecentlyinEuropethefootballstarDavidBeckhamhastakenona
similarroleforasignificantsubsectionofsociety.Whilebothexamplesgivenrepresenticons,
their natures are very different. The little red book was a symbol for the Chinese Cultural
Revolution,whileDavidBecketisaherowhoissociallyelevatedbythosewhovaluethisimage
andstyleoflife.
While culture has an iconic nature that is constituted as heroes (as admired persons who serve as
an example for behaviour) and symbols (such as words, gestures, colour or other artefacts that
carry a special meaning), it also has ritual. Ritual is a formalised, predetermined set of symbolic
actions generally performed in a particular environment at a regular, recurring interval, and is
prescribed by the traditions that the cultural group holds to. The purpose of rituals is to greet and
pay respect to something (e.g., and idea or concept) or someone (e.g., a person because of their
iconic behaviour/achievements or their symbolic role position). Hence rituals are an illustration of
the implicit and explicit patterns of social behaviour that, for Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952),
occur through the acquisition and transmission of symbols. Other reflections of culture occur in
communication, manners, dress codes, social rules and role models. Culture is historically derived,
and composed of selected ideas and their attached values. It results from the accumulated
experiences of action, and it conditions future action.
The normative nature of cultures differs according to the composition of their collective
membership(Triandis and Suh, 2002).Soculturehasanindividualdimension.Havingsaidthis,
theimpactoftheindividualonacultureislikelytoberelativetothesizeofthepopulationthat
makeitupbecauseofitsnormativenature,thoughotherfactorsalsocomeintoplaylikehow
stablethecultureis.
Defining an ontology for culture provides the basis for its understanding. Ontology is the study of
Being or existence, and it can be used to define the nature of reality through argumented
systematisation (Cocchiarella, 1991). Now, a function of ontology is to distinguish between
distinct modes of Being through the creation of a referencing system. Ontological analysis develops
to enable one to separate off distinct realities to enable a more manageable analysis to develop, and
4

thereby resulting in more detailed explanations than would otherwise be possible. Thus theories of
levels or categories develop. It is theory of levels that have been used to understand the nature of
cultural mapping (Dahl,2004).
Asimpletwolevelmodelofculturewouldbeasfollows:onelevelisconstitutedbyvaluesand
theotherbybehaviourorartefacts.Thevalueslevelisnotdirectlyvisible,butthebehaviouror
artefactslevelis.
3.1HofstedesCulturalOntology
AmorecomplexfourlevelmodelwascreatedbyHofstede(1991).Heconceivesofthelevelsas
beingembeddedonewiththeotherlikethelayersofanonion,creatingamutualdependency
betweenthem.Valuesformthemosthiddenlayerofcultureandareconstitutedas(Hofstedes,
1994,p.8):broadtendenciestoprefercertainstatesofaffairsoverothers.Theyrepresentthe
ideas that people have about how things ought to be. As such they strongly influence
behaviour.Behaviourisseenasaculturalmanifestation,andwhenthisisnormativethenwithin
thecontextoftheparadigmpracticesareultimatelyderived(Figure2).Suchpracticescanalsobe
seenastypesofbehaviourthataresanctionedbythesocialcollective.Whiletheyarevisible,
they carry invisible cultural meanings that extend across all the three outer layers For Dahl
(2004)theconceptofpracticeshasnotbeenadequatelydefinedbyHofstede,oradequately
differentiatedfromritualsandsymbols.
The general representation of culture and its manifestations used by Hofstede et al (1990) is the
onion layer model shown in figure 1. This has been used to explore the manifestations of culture
within corporate environments, in which Hofstede differentiated between values, rituals, heroes and
symbols, and practices (Table 1), originally postulated by Deal and Kennedy (1982). This model
also appears to be a simplified version of the model considered by Lundberg (1985) and developed
by Dalmau and Dick (1987).
Symbols
Heros
Rituals

Values

Practices

Figure2:TheHofstedeOnionLayerModelofCulture
Manifestations of culture
Practices:
visible to an
observer, and
having culturally
specific meaning

Type of
Manifestation
Symbols
Heroes
Rituals

Explanation
Include words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular
meaning within a culture, and who thus serve as models for behaviour
Personifications having highly prized characteristics that serve as
models for behaviour.
Collective activities that are technically superfluous but socially
essential within a culture, and are carried out for their own sake

Values

Non-specific feelings of good and evil, beauty and ugly, normal and
abnormal, rational and irrational; within work culture, assessment of
work goals is made like the characteristics of an ideal job, general
beliefs, like competition between employees usually does more harm
than good.

Table1:NatureofCultureanditsManifestations(Hofstedeetal,1990)
4. An Alternative Ontology
The problem with most ontological representations is that, like those shown in Figures 1 and 2,
they are static formulations of a collection of related concepts that do not take into account the
dynamics or relativity of perspective or social composition. Also, creating a layer typology with
hierarchically defined embedded fixed layers can be a rather limiting way of defining a schema that
explores the relationship between culture and behaviour, and a more general model that depicts
how the distinct layers relate to each other is desirable. This would provide a more comprehensive
means of creating an analysis for culture and its manifestations.
Here we shall propose an alternative to the static layer model, postulated by coupling two distinct
theories, those that arise from Piaget and Beer. This coupling is axiomatic, and proposes that the
intentional ability of an autonomous human activity system to be viable and therefore durably
survive in a potentially hostile environment is a direct function of what we shall refer to operative
intelligence (Figure 3).

Autonomous system

Viability
(durable
survival)

Operative
intelligence

Environment

Figure 3: Onion ontology showing the connection between the ability of an autonomous system
to durably survive in a potentially hostile environment
The notions of viability for autonomous systems achieved prominence through the work of Stafford
Beer (1979). For Yolles (1999) a viable system is one that can be seen to be self-dependent, and thus
take on an independent existence and may be thought of as being autonomous. Argyris (1976) argues
that the viability of such systems lies in their ability to respond to unanticipated environmental
changes, and a system is viable if it can respond to changes whether or not they have been foreseen.
Viability, then, is the ability of an autonomous system to durably survive.
To explore operative intelligence, we shall refer here to Austins (2005) explanations of Piagets
(1950) theory of child development as posited by Demetriou et al (1998). We also note that Yolles
(2006) argues that work like that of Piaget can be extended from the individual to the collective
autonomous systems. This assumes that in collectives normative cultural structure can occur
because the symbolic forms that create it can have a meaning that is to some extent shared by
individuals within it. The coherence of the culture is ultimately determined by the strength of the
capacity to so share.
Piagets theory describes intelligence within the context of cognitive development that frames how
the world is understood and represented. Operative intelligence is dynamic and
intimately connected to understanding. It is responsible for the representation and

manipulation of the transformational aspects of reality. It involves all actions that are undertaken
so as to anticipate, follow or recover the transformations of the objects or persons of interest.
Piaget assigns the name figurative intelligence to reflections of operative intelligence. Figurative
intelligence is static and representative of what has been extracted through
the operative intelligence. It is responsible for the representation of the static
aspects of reality. It involves any means of representation used to keep in
mind the states that intervene between transformations i.e., it involves
perception, drawing, mental imagery, language and imitation. Because states
cannot exist independently from the transformations that interconnect them,
it is the case that the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their meaning
from the operative aspects of intelligence.
Piaget further posited that this process of understanding and change involves the two basic
functions: assimilation, and accommodation. Assimilation refers to the active transformation of
information so that it may be integrated into already available mental schemes. Sternberg (1996)
notes that accommodation refers to the active transformation of the mental schemes so that the
particularities of whatever the individual is interacting with may be taken into account. For Piaget
intelligence is active in that it depends on the actions carried out by the individual in order to
construct and reconstruct his/her models of the world. It is also constructive because mental
actions are coordinated into more inclusive and cohesive systems and in this way are raised to more
stable and effective levels of functioning. When one function dominates over the other
they generate representations belonging to figurative intelligence.
Interestingly, Piagets theory of intelligence through assimilation and accommodation has been used
by Kolb (1974) in his cycle of learning. In assimilation, what is perceived in the outside world is
incorporated into the internal world, without changing the structure of that internal world. The
internal world has to accommodate itself to the evidence with which it is confronted and thus adapt
to it, which can be a more difficult and painful process. This process can also be applied to
collectives, and attempts have been made to do this, for example, by Nonaka and Takuchi (1995),
and Yolles (2006).
5. Knowledge Cybernetics
Operative intelligence is a condition that depends on the interaction between thinking and doing in
overcoming a testing environment. However the believing/ knowledge domain is an enabler for the
development of durable survival over the longer term. In Figure 4 we show the embedded model as
a set of symbolic relationship between these ontologically distinct domains of Being: believing/
knowing, thinking/ feeling and behaving/ doing (or action). To highlight the hierarchical nature of
the model we say that there is a lateral relationship between thinking and feeling, while the
relationship between durable survival and successful functioning is transitive and drives system
viability.

Viability

Believing/
knowing

Operative
intelligence
Thinking/
feeling

Behaving/
doing

Environment

Figure 4: Ontological notion of survival through operative intelligence against a potentially hostile
environment
KC is conceptualised in terms of social dynamics based on knowledge and knowledge processes,
and recognises the importance of communications and control. It involves feedback and feedforward that enables, for instance, thinking to be turned into behaviour in a way that can be
controlled and evaluated, and knowledge to underpin this relationship. It is concerned with social
collectives that have both a social and cultural dimension. It is interested in any autonomous
system that is viable and therefore has a capacity to durably survive, a consequence of what we
call operative intelligence. Following Piaget, we assign two aspects to this: operative and figurative
intelligence. Operative intelligence is said by Piaget to be responsible for the representation and
manipulation of the transformational aspects of reality, and as such it may be constituted in terms
of operative processes that enable an organisation to maintain stable operations. Figurative
intelligence is constituted as a means of mental representation for the states that
intervene between transformations. It would therefore be expected to have
both informational and knowledge attributes. For our purposes, it is useful to
identify two attributes of figurative intelligence: figurative imagery in which
information rich constructs are reflections of operative intelligence, and
figurative knowledge in which thematic patterns of knowledge are
constructed to provide meaning. This representation is illustrated in Figure 5.
Here, the hierarchical distinction that arises from the relationship between viability and
operative intelligence enables us to explore both first order and second order effects. There is an
intimate connection between thinking and behaving that is direct and called as a first order effect
that involves a network of operative processes. While behaving is ultimately a function of empirical
experience, thinking is associated with the mental images that are created through empirical
experiences. However, there is a second order effect that arises from the thematic assembles of
belief/knowledge that we have called figurative knowledge. Interestingly, this model of intelligence
can be related directly to Beers (1979) Viable System Model that has been used to diagnose
organisational pathologies.
While the natures of the three attributes are all very different, they have (epistemological) channels
between them that define their mutual relationship in the autonomous Being (Figure 5). The
relationship between this autonomous system and the task rich environment is that the system
affects the environment while that interaction determines the viability of the system.
The representation of the system can be formalised as in Figure 6, called the Social Viable System
(SVS) model, which arises from the level theory of autonomous social collectives. The model is
cybernetic in nature, thereby centring on communications and control between the different levels.
It is also context sensitive so that the nature of the levels can change given the right conditions.

Conditions
Operative processes

Towards
viability

Affects

Believing/
knowing

Thinking/
Feeling

Figurative
knowledge

Figurative
imagery
Develops

Towards
operative
intelligence

Behaving/
doing
Environment

Empirical
experience

Operative feedback

Requisite
variety

Figure 5: Piaget related relationships between three types of reality showing channels of
epistemological migrations
Autogenesis
(self-production of
principles): e.g.,
governance, strategic
management

Existential domain

of Being (Jing energy)

Culture, worldviews,
paradigms, understanding
Unconscious
Knowledge

Autopoiesis
(self-production through a
network of processes): e.g.,
operative or political
processes

Noumenal domain
of Mind (Chi energy)
Images, systems of
thought, imagination,
rationality & intention
Subconscious
Information

Autogenesis: feedback
adjusting the guiding
principles for autopoiesis

Phenomenal domain of
Experience (Shen
energy)
Structure, behaviour,
interaction
Conscious
Data
Autopoiesis: feedback
adjusting network of
processes

Figure 6: Social Viable Systems (SVS) model based on Schwarzian model of Autonomous Viable
Systems, where autonomy is a function of both autogenesis and autopoiesis
The basis of this SVS ontology was developed from Schwarz (1994) and Yolles (1999). The three
domains constitute distinct modes of being: measurable energetic phenomenal behaviour,
information rich images or systems of thought, and knowledge related existence that is expressed
through patterns of meaning. The term existential is taken directly from Schwarzs (1994 and
1997) usage; the term noumenal is taken from the positivist work of Kant (e.g., see Weed, 2002),
and though we also refer to the sphere of mind and thinking as did he, our approach is
constructivist; and the term phenomenal has been adopted because of intended consistency with the
principles of phenomenology as founded by Husserl (1950) (deriving from his 1882 doctoral thesis;
also see Osborn, 1934 and after him Heidegger, 1927).
The three domains of SVS are analytically distinct classifications of being, and they each have
properties that are manifestations of knowledge. The phenomenal domain has social interests
adapted from Habermass (1971) in a way explained in Yolles and Guo (2003). The other domain
properties arise as an extension of this, are listed in Table 2.
There is an implicit linkage between the domains that has been explored by Yolles (2006) using
notions of relevance, as originally proposed by Schutz and Luckman (1975). The existential
domain has thematic relevance that determines the constituents of an experience; the noumenal or
virtual domain creates direction through the selection of relevant aspects of a stock of knowledge to
formulate a system of thought, and it could be made more complex by involving feeling; and the
phenomenal is associated with through and in particular action. The notions of conscious,
subconscious and unconscious derive from Freudian psychology, are connected to the ideas of
9

Wollheims (1999), and also related to the ideas of organisational psychology as promoted, for
instance, by Kets de Vries (1991) resulting in a psychology of the collective.
In essence the domain properties of Table 2 demonstrate the nature of the connection between
culture and behaviour is evident. The nature of the cultural disposition is better explained through
table 3.

Sociality
Cognitive
Properties
Cognitive
interests

Phenomenal
(conscious)
domain
Activities
Shenenergy
Cognitive
purposes

Noumenal
(subconscious)
domain
Organising
Information
Chienergy

Cognitive
influences
Creatingcultural
disposition
Exustential
(unconscious)
domain
Worldviews
Knowledge
Jingenergy

Kinematics
(throughsocialmotion)
Technical

Direction
(determiningsocialtrajectory)
Practical

Possibilities/potential
(throughvarietydevelopment)
CriticalDeconstraining

Work.Thisenablespeople
toachievegoalsand
generatematerialwell
being.Itinvolvestechnical
abilitytoundertakeactionin
theenvironment,andthe
abilitytomakeprediction
andestablishcontrol.

Interaction. This requires that people

as individuals and groups in a social
system to gain and develop the
possibilities of an understanding of
each others' subjective views. It is
consistent with a practical interest in
mutual understanding that can address
disagreements, which can be a threat
to the social form of life.
Rational/Appreciative

Degreeofemancipation.For
organisationalviability,therealisingof
individualpotentialismosteffective
whenpeople:(i)liberatethemselves
fromtheconstraintsimposedbypower
structures(ii)learnthrough
precipitationinsocialandpolitical
processestocontroltheirowndestinies.

Intention.Withinthe
governanceofsocial
communitiesthisoccurs
throughthecreationand
pursuitofgoalsandaims
thatmaychangeovertime,
andenablespeoplethrough
controlandcommunications
processestoredirecttheir
futures.

Formativeorganising.Within
governanceenablesmissions,goals,
andaimstobedefinedand
approachedthroughplanning.Itmay
involvelogical,and/orrelational
abilitiestoorganisethoughtandaction
andthustodefinesetsofpossible
systematic,systemicandbehaviour
possibilities.Itcanalsoinvolvethe
(appreciative)useoftacitstandardsby
whichexperiencecanbeorderedand
valued,andmayinvolvereflection.

Socio

Base

Mannerofthinking.Withingovernance
ofsocialcommunitiesanintellectual
frameworkoccursthroughwhich
policymakersobserveandinterpret
reality.Thishasanaestheticalor
politicallycorrectethicalpositioning.It
providesanimageofthefuturethat
enablesactionthroughpolitically
correctstrategicpolicy.Itgivesa
politicallycorrectviewofstagesof
historicaldevelopment,inrespectof
interactionwiththeexternal
environment.
Politico

Formation.Enables
individuals/groupsina
socialcommunitytobe
influencedbyknowledge
thatrelatestoitssocial
environment.Itaffects
socialstructuresand
processesthatdefinethe
socialformsthatarerelated
tocommunityintentionsand
behaviours.

Belief.Influencesoccurfrom
knowledgethatderivesfromthe
cognitiveorganisation(thesetof
beliefs,attitudes,values)ofother
worldviews.Itultimatelydetermines
howthoseinsocialcommunities
interact,anditinfluencestheir
understandingofformative
organising.Itsconsequencesimpactof
theformationofsocialnorms.

Freedom.Influencesoccurfrom
knowledgethataffectsocial
communitypolity,determinedinpart,
byhowparticipantsthinkaboutthe
constraintsongroupandindividual
freedoms;andinconnectionwiththis,
toorganiseandbehave.Itultimately
hasimpactonunitaryandplural
ideologyandmorality,andthedegree
oforganisationalemancipation.

Cybernetical

10

Ideological/Moral

Table 2: Domain cognitive properties that determine Social Orientation (sociality)

developed from Habermass Knowledge Constitutive Interests
Cultural
t
y
p
e
Socio

Base

Politico

Nature

Composed of the belief system (beliefs, attitudes and values in relationship) embedded in behavioural norms
relating to social structure and behaviour. Associated with meanings of social symbols through which explicit and
implicit patterns of behaviour are acquired and transmitted. Supports myth that gives both individual and group
significance to existences enabling sense to be made of perceived reality. Provides a basis for the development of
intention that enables worldview holders to define and pursue goals through a cybernetic cognitive purpose.
Through a practical cognitive purpose, work enables the achievement of these goals. This culture can be
associated with executor knowledge, which supports the ability of people as individuals or groups to carry out or
perform activities in a given situation.
Includes the nature of meaning and relates to wisdom. In terms of knowledge, base culture involves
metaknowledge or knowledge about knowledge. It relates to the ability of viewholders to undertake knowledge
housekeeping, enables knowledge maintenance, the examination of self-reasoning operations, and an explanation
of self-behavioral processes. We may also associate this with identification knowledge the facts and concepts
making up the knowledge domain. It is meataknowledge that also facilitates our rationality and appreciation, and
to establish practical interactive relationships that forms the core of our social structures.
It is learned behaviour, implying that processes of socialisation involving the creation of values, attitudes and
beliefs influence a political positioning. Political culture may ultimately be seen to be responsible for the
development of ideology and ethics, and critical deconstraining. It can also be associated with an understanding
of elaboration knowledge the relationships between the individual knowledge components and the way they are
organised that relates to the creation of polity.

Table3:TypesofCulture
Here, the nature of political influences is that it affects the political culture of a viable
organization.Referringtopoliticalculture,Rosenbaum(1972,p13)notesthemaximthatitis
"learnedbehaviour",implyingthatprocessesofsocialisationinvolvingthecreationofvalues,
attitudes and beliefs influence a political positioning. Politico cognitive influences can be
connected with political culture, which may ultimately be seen to be responsible for the
developmentofideologyandethics,andcriticaldeconstraining.Itcanalsobeassociatedwithan
understandingofwhatMarshall(1995)callselaborationknowledgetherelationshipsbetween
theindividualknowledgecomponentsandthewaytheyareorganisedthatrelatestothecreation
ofpolity.
Consistent with the arguments of Williams et al (1993), the cognitive property of social
influencesmaybeseentoaffectwhathavecalledsocioculture.Thisiscomposedofthesystem
(beliefs,attitudesandvaluesinrelationship)thatareembeddedinthenormsthatrelatetosocial
structure and its related behaviour. They are defined in terms of a set of meanings that are
associated with social symbols through which explicit and implicit patterns of behavior are
acquired and transmitted. It also supports myth, defined as narrative patterns that give
significancetoviewersexistence,andthatenablesthemtomakesenseoftheirperceivedreality
(May,1991).
Thenotionofnarrativeisusefulhere.AccordingtoWalterFisherinhisbookTheNarrative
Paradigm:inthebeginning,thenatureofpeopleasnarrativebeingsdeterminesrationality.This
occurs through their inherentawareness of narrative probability,what constitutes acoherent
story,andtheirconstanthabitoftestingnarrativefidelitythatiswhetherornotthestoriesthey
experienceareconsistentwiththeirworldviewtruths.Ifwecanconceiveofthepossibilityof
their being some degreeof common rationality, then this will derive from what Schutz and
Luckmann(1974)refertoastheroutinisedstockofknowledgethatdevelopswithinapurposeful
environmentofcommunications(calledthelifeworld).Withinthetheoryofnarrative,thenature
ofmythcanfurtherbeexplainedthroughsymbolicconvergencetheory,wheresharedfantasies
providegroupmemberswithcomprehensibleformsofexplanationforthepast,andthinking
aboutthefuture(Bormann,1985).Thesesharedfantasiesoperateasabasisforcommunaland
11

groupconsciousness.Thenotionthatthereexistsharedfantasiesisofcourseconsistentwiththe
alreadyconsiderednotionofRuiz(1997)thatawakenessisalsoaformofdreamthatoperates
through conditioning within the worldview. Socioculture also provides a basis for the
developmentofintentionthatenablesworldviewholderstodefineandpursuegoalsthrougha
cybernetic cognitive purpose. Through a practical cognitive purpose, work enables the
achievementofthesegoals.FollowingMarshall(1995),wemayassociatephenomenalculture
withexecutionknowledgetheconceptualskillsandproceduresrequiredinexecutingparticular
activitiesorbehaviours.
Cognitiveinfluencesaffectwhatweshallrefertoasbaseculturethatincludesthenatureof
meaningandrelatestowisdom.Intermsofknowledge,basecultureinvolvesmetaknowledgeor
knowledge about knowledge. It relatestotheabilityof viewholders toundertake knowledge
housekeeping, enables knowledge maintenance, the examination of selfreasoning operations,
and an explanation of selfbehavioral processes. We may also associate this withMarshalls
identification knowledge the facts and concepts making up the knowledge domain. It is
metaknowledge that also facilitates our rationality, and to establish practical interactive
relationshipsthatformsthecoreofoursocialstructures.
Returning now to Figure 6, the Taoist notions of Jing, Chi and Shen have also to be explained.
Sunshine and Wang (2003) note three forms of measurable energy. For them, these three energies
can be associated with matter, energy, and information. Energy facilitation is an integral part of
Taoism, and three ontologically distinct forms of energy can be identified through the ancient idea
of the three treasures. According to (Liang and Wu, 2001) these treasures are the Jiang-Chi-Shen
energies1 that theorize and explain the human physiological system and the fundamentals for all
facets of life and its many variations. Jing is the essence of material-life is a coarse physical energy,
Chi is an energy that we may see as psycho-physical in nature, and Shen is the spiritual life force
energy. As such the Jing, Chi and Shen are inseparably linked with each another. The nature of this
relationship is that Jing is manifested as Chi that is in turn manifested as Shen. Shen may also
ultimately be manifested as Tao - a process of achieving ever-higher levels of integration. This uses
metaphor to represents an intimate relationship that is implied by the ontological differentiation in
Figure 6.
The nature of autopoiesis and autogenesis is of particular interest in KC through its SVS model,
defining the cybernetic relationships between the levels of Being. Here autopoiesis (originally
defined by Maturan, 1975) is a first order cybernetic connection between noumenal activity like
thinking that, through a network of principles, can control phenomenal activity like doing. A second
order control called autogenesis conditions autopoiesis, and enables autopoiesis to be knowledge.
Examples of autopoiesis are political or other operative management processes, and example of
autogenesis is strategic management.
Guo (2006) was seeking to explore the values of corporations and how the Chinese state owned
commercial banks are able to respond to change. In particular he was interested in examining what
was important to the organisation. To do this he formulated a measuring instrument from Table 2,
presented here as Table 4 and called a cultural strategic map.
The purpose of the cultural strategic map was to look for indicators of corporate coherence and
pathology, though it is likely that some of his work could also be applied to the exploration of the
manifestation of corporate culture. It resulted in a measuring instrument of 52 questions that
assessed the perceived culture and its manifestations, with 521 corporate employees responding out
of a distribution of 800 instruments. Analysis of variance was used to indicate the pathologies
within an organisation, and a correlation analysis was used to evaluate organisational coherence.

For a definition of these terms see for instance the The Tai Chi Chuan Lun (Discourse) at the website

http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/classics_lun_commentary.html,orthetheToowoomba
BuddhistCentre,TaiChi,http://www.fwbo.org.au/toowoomba/tai_chi_chuan.html,accessedJune2005.
12

Cognitive
Properties/Attributes
Interests
Technical
(work)

Practical
(interaction)

Purposes

Influences

InquiryPriortodefiningODAction
Technical refers to control and prediction. So put the different operations being
undertakenbytheorganisationintoclasses,andexaminethemintermsofcontroland
prediction.
Whatclassesofoperationareundercontrolandhow?
Are the consequences of this control consistent with the expectation provided by
prediction?
Whatsymbolsandritualsarebeingusedinoperationsandthroughcommunications?
Arethesymbolsandritualsbeingharnessedforthechangeprocess?
Whatpoliciesareleaderspursuing?
Isorganisationalbehaviourconsistentwithorganisationalpolicies?

Critical
deconstraining
(emancipation)

Arethereanydirectorindirectrewardsforbehaviour?
Duringchange,howistheorganisationdisengagingfromthepresentstate?
Isempowermentprovidedforthefuture?
Is individual potential encouraged by people: (i) through the liberation of appropriate
constraintsimposedbypowerstructures,(ii)learningthroughprecipitationinsocialand
politicalprocessestocontroltheirowndestinies?

Cybernetic
(interaction)

Whatstrategicgoalsandaimsarethere,andaretheyunderstoodandbeingpursuedbyall
partsoftheorganisation?
Arepeoplecommunicatingabouttheirgoalsandaims,andarerelatedcontrolsinplace?

Rational/
appreciative
(organising)

Istherekeypowergroupsupportforchange,whatisitandhowdoesitwork?
Arethereanyobjectives/goalsforthechange?
Hasastabilityprocessesbeendeveloped,willitwork,andwhatisit?
Arethereanynormativeunexpressed tacitstandardsbywhichexperienceisorderedand
valued?
Iscorporatereflectionsought?

Ideological
/moral
mannerof
thinking)

Is there any ideological (belief system that creates an image for action planning)
dissatisfaction?
Ischangebeingmobilisingthroughparticipationandtheformationofavision/imagefor
theorganisation?
Whatispoliticallycorrect(providinganadherencetoatypicallyprogressiveorthodoxyon
issues involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology; and in general it includes
concern over expressions like speech, behaviour, products, advertising, that might be
offensivetocertaingroupsthroughsociety)fortheorganisation,andisthisbeingadhered
to?
Isthereauniversalimageofthefuturethatiscommonlyunderstood?
Isthereacommonunderstandingofthecyberneticpurposestoenabletechnicalaspectsof
theorganisation?
Areobjectivesandaimscommonlyunderstood?

Social
(formative)

Cultural
(belief)

Isthereenoughcommonandspecialistknowledgeaboutthecurrentstateanditsfuture?
Arethereanypredominantmythsthatwillcomplicatethis?
Whatlanguageisusedtoredefinecorporateidentitytohelpdirecttheorganisation?

Politico
(freedom)

Whatarethevaluesheldthatsupportthecreationofgroups,hierarchies,leaders,power
positions,andpowerrelationships?
Arethereanyconstraintsthatwillaffectideology/ethics?

Table4:AStrategicMapforCultures(Guo,2006)
Yolles (2006) also explores the nature of culture deriving from Table 3, and generates a cultural
map as shown in Table 5. It operates through 6 generic characteristics of culture, across four fields
13

of manifestation. The extreme conditions that are defined in this matrix are representative of
enantiomer or ying-yang opposites from which measures of a culture can be obtain.

GenericCultural
Characteristics
(relatingtocultural
condition)

Extreme
condition:

PhenomenalDomain
(Impliedcollective
predispositionto
Conscious/Ego)
Relatingtowork,interactionand
emancipation
Pragmatism(reflectiveof
circumstance)
Fundamentalism(conformity
toafundamentalprescription
independentofcircumstance)

RecursiveDomainRelevancewithinExistentialDomain
Noumenaldomain
ExistentialDomain
(Impliedcollectivepredisposition
(CollectiveUnconscious)
Relatingtoknowledge,belief,freedomandemotion
toSubconscious/Superego)
Relatingtointention,organizing,
States
Disposition
andmannerofthinking
(impulses,instincts,
(knowledge,emotion,filter
perceptions,imaginings,
toprocessesofknowledge
drivesandmotivations)
migration)
Patterning(persistentcuriosity
aboutobjectworld,connectedto
Sensatism (locked to phenomena, sense and materially
symmetry,pattern,balance,
related, may be able to translate
dynamicsofphysicalrelationships)
the ideas of others materially)
Ideationalism (relating to
Dramatizing(commitmentto
acquisition or creation of
sequencesofinterpersonalevents
concepts or ideas)
andcommunicationswithdramatic
ornarrativestructures)

Global
Context

LocalContexts

Cultural
condition

Work,interaction&
emancipationthrough
reflectionorcommitmentto
prescription

Intention,mannerofthinking&
imagethroughpersistent
curiosityorcommitmentto
narrative

Respect

Hardwork/industry,Legitimacy
ofascriptionofrolesandfixed
resourceslikesocialpower(and
powerdistance),Heroism
Obligationtosocialgroup
(family/nation),Commitment,
Resistancetocorruption,
Responsibility
Harmonywithothers,
Consensus/compromise,
Avoidingconfrontation,Thrift
(saving),Noncompetition
Solidarity,Governanceby
leaders(asopposedtolaw)

Sincerity,Courtesy

Learning

Sensibility

Honor

Synergy

Allegiances

Loyaltytosuperiors
Face(protecting,giving,gaining,
losing)

Knowledge,belief,freedom&emotionthrough
knowledgeintensificationorcommitmentto
materialphenomena
Cultural&individual
Knowledge&emotions
impulses,drives&
motivations
Tolerance,Respectforthe
Tradition,Senseof
old
culturalsuperiority
Trustworthiness
Socialjustice
Filialpiety(paternal
obligation)
Moderation
OpenMindedness

Kinship

Conformity/grouporientation
Collectivism,Guanxi(personal
connection/networking)

Jen ai/Kindness
(forgiveness, compassion)
Equality

Observationorrites/rituals,
Baringhardships,Risk

Adaptability,Goalformation,
Controldevelopment,Uncertainty,
ambiguity,curiosity

Li/propriety,Wealth,
Pragmatism(tosuitasituation),
Security

Notguidedsolelybyprofit,Having
fewdesires,Contentednesswith
positioninlife,Peoplebeing
primarilygood

Personalsteadinessand
stability,Selfcultivation,
Creativity,Variety,
Accomplishment,
Intellectualpursuits
Patience,Prudence
Purity/disinterest,Success,
Pleasure,Excitement

Feelingofbelonging
Longlasting
relationships(as
opposedtogains)
Knowledgeacquisition,
Stability,Ambition

Persistence/perseverance
Te(virtue,moralstandard)
Order,Unitywithnature

Repaymentofgoodand
bad

Abasement/humbleness,
Senseofshame,Sense
ofrighteousness/
integrity

Table5:CulturalMappingMatrixduetoYolles(2006)
6. Manifestations of Culture
The above study can be compared with that of Hofstede et al (1990). Their intention to undertake
an empirical study required a qualitative model around. They found one from the schema of Deal
and Kennedy (1982), interested in the collective psychology of corporations. This model postulated
a relationship between corporate risk with feedback and reward (Figure 7), and resulted in a
cultural typology as shown in Table 6.

14

Low Risk

High Risk

Rapid
Feedback/
reward

Work-hard,
play-hard
culture

Tough-guy macho
culture

Slow
Feedback/
reward

Process/
bureaucratic culture

Bet-thecompany
culture

Figure 7: Schema relating Risk with Feedback/reward in corporate environments (Deal and
Kennedy, 1982), and providing a cultural typology.
Type of culture
Work-hard, play-hard
culture
Tough-guy macho
culture
Process culture

Bet-the-company
culture

Feature of culture
Rapid feedback/reward and low
risk, (e.g., restaurants, software
companies)
Rapidfeedback/rewardandhigh
risk(e.g.police,surgeons,
sports)
Slow feedback/reward and low
risk (e.g. banks, insurance
companies)

Slow feedback/reward and high

risk (e.g. aircraft manufacturers,
oil companies)

Typical Characteristics of Culture

Stress comes from quantity of work rather
than uncertainty. High-speed action leads to
high-speed recreation
Stress comes from high risk and potential
loss/ gain of reward. There is a focus on the
present rather than the longer-term future
Low stress, plodding work, comfort and
security. Stress may come from internal
politics and stupidity of the system.
Development of bureaucracies and other
ways of maintaining the status quo. Focus
on security of the past and of the future
Stress comes from high risk and delay
before knowing if actions have paid off.
The long view is taken, though much effort
is put into making sure that plans
materialise.

Table 5: The Deal and Kennedy (1982) cultural typology

Factor analysis also produced a number of value factors in the Hofstede et al. study, as shown in
Table 6. These determine three need value factors: the need for security, work centrality, and the
need for authority. Indeed, all of these factors are likely to be relatable to the elements of the
cultural mapping matrix of Table 4.
The interest of Hofstede et al also led them to identify a number of practice factors that connect
to Figure 7 (see Table 7). The factors listed in Table 6 have been related to the strategic cultural
map of Gou, and it can be seen that the values in relation to the all of the factors can be can be
connected to cognitive interests (i.e., technical attributes (work), practical (interaction), and critical
deconstraining (emancipation)), but not apparently to purposes or to influences.
ThosefactorsinTable7thatrelatetopracticesidentifyenantiomerpolaroppositesthat,within
thecontextofChineseTaoism,maybereferredtoasyinandyang.However,likethevalue
factorsallultimatelyrelatetointerestsandhencework,practicalandhenceinteraction,critical
deconstrainingandhenceemancipationinonewayoranother.Theydohavesomenoumenal

15

aspects,butnottoomany.Noumenal attributesarecoretoinfluencingthewaybehaviouris
regulatedandmanifested.

Value Factors
Need for Security

Work Centrality

Need for Authority

Factor Characteristics
Man dislikes work
Serving your country unimportant
Variety and adventure in work unimportant
When people have failed in life its not their
Fringe benefits important
fault
Main reason for hierarchical structure is knowing
Opportunity for advancement unimportant
who has authority
Opportunities for training unimportant
When a mans career demands it, family should
Job you like is not more important than
make sacrifices
career
Having little tension and stress at work important
Being consulted by boss unimportant
Would not continue working if didnt need the
Living in a desirable area unimportant
money
Employees afraid to disagree with superiors
The successful in life should help the unsuccessful Most people cannot be trusted
Pursuing own interest is not best contribution to
Desirable that management authority can be
society
questioned
Working in well-defined job situation important
Work more important than leisure time
Challenging tasks important
Competition between employees not harmful
Prestigious company or organization
Physical working conditions unimportant
important
Opportunities for helping others unimportant
Decisions by individuals better than group
No authority crisis in organizations
decisions
Does not prefer a consultative manager
Working relationship with boss important
Most organizations better off if conflicts
Parents should not be satisfied when
eliminated forever
children become independent
Own manager autocratic or paternalistic
Staying with one employer is best way for
Undesirable that management authority can be
making career
questioned
Conflicts with opponents best resolved by
Parents should stimulate children to be best in
compromise
class
Employee who quietly does duty is asset to
organization

Table6:OrganisationalValueFactorsandtheirCharacteristics
Enantiomer (polar) Factors
Yin
Yang
ProcessResults-Oriented
Oriented

EmployeeOriented

Job-Oriented

Parochial

Professional

Open system

Closed system

Loose Control

Tight Control

Characteristics
Employee are told when good job is
done. Typical member test.
Comfortable in unfamiliar situations.
Each day brings new challenges.
Typical member initiating Informal
style of dealing with each other.
Important decisions made by
individuals. Organization only
interested in work people do.
Decisions centralized at top.
Managers keep good people for own
department.
Peoples private life is their own
business. Job competence is only
criterion in hiring people.
Only very special people fit in
organization. Our department worst
within the organization. Management
stingy with small things.
Everybody cost-conscious. Meeting
times kept punctually. Typical

16

Typical member warm. Try to be

pioneers. Typical member direct. People
put in maximal effort. Mistakes are
tolerated. Open to outsiders and
newcomers. Managers help good people
to advance.
Changes imposed by management
decree. Newcomers left to find own way.
Management dislikes union members.
No special ties with local community.
Little concern for personal problems of
employees
Think three years ahead or more.
Strongly aware of competition.
Cooperative and trust between.
Departments normal
Little attention to physical work
environment. Organization and people
closed and secretive. New employees
need more than a year to feel at home.
Always speak seriously of organization
and job.

Normative

Pragmatic

member well-groomed.
Pragmatic, not dogmatic in matters of
ethics. Organization contributes little
to society.

Major emphasis on meeting customer

needs. Results more important than
procedures. Never talk about the history
of the organization.

Table7:OrganisationalCulturalEnantiomersandtheirCharacteristics
RelatingtheKnowledgeCyberneticsSchematotheHofstedeStudy
ThereisanimmediatelyapparentconnectionbetweenTable5andtheKCmodelofTable2in
respectof cybernetical cognitivepurposesandthe featuresofaculture.Thisisclearbecause
thereareissuesoffeedbackthatrelatetocontrolprocesses,andarecyberneticinnature.The
correlation of the cybernetic characteristics with the characteristics of culture provides a
potentiallyusefulsetofpropositions,especiallyifoneisdealingwithorganisationalpathologies
andtheirresolution.
Byinspectionitcanbeseenthatanumberofthesefactorsandtheirrepresentedcharacteristics
canbemappedontothestrategicculturalmap,providingawayofidentifyingwhatnotionshave
beenleftoutoftheevaluationofthemanifestationofcultureaccordingtoKC.
However,itwillberealisedfrominspectionthatnotalloftheattributesofculturelistedinthe
strategicculturalmapareavailableintheHofstedeetalstudy,implyingthattheKCschema
providesamorecomprehensiveexplorationofthemanifestationsofculture.
SomesupportfortheDealandKennedymodelisprovidedbytheGuostudyinthatrewardmay
beseenasapoliticalprocessthatisimportantforcriticaldeconstraining.However,thenatureof
whatconstitutessuchrewardhasnotbeenexaminedfortheorganisationsexamined,andthis
mayvaryamongthedifferentorganisationalcultures.
DealandKennedywaslookingattherelationshipbetweenriskandreward,andintermsofthe
KCstudywasthusphenomenallycentred.Itdidnotsetouttoexplorethenoumenalattributesof
a corporation that enables corporate political and operative structures and processes, and
behaviourtomaterialise.Forinstance,whilethemainstudydoesnotexploreideologyandethics,
referencedoesappearintable7toethics.Noriscriticaldeconstrainingconsideredthatinmore
recent times would be connected with levels of empowerment. The bound for the Hofstede
analysis lies in the useful, if limited, Deal and Kennedy model, and while there are clear
relationshipsbetweenthisandKC,attemptingtoexploretherelationshipswouldbeadistraction
thattakesthepaperawayfromitsintendedpurpose.
7. Conclusion
The Hofstede et al factor analysis study explores cultural manifestations in corporate culture, and
in doing so centres on the Deal and Kennedy model that relates risk with reward. While this model
has considerable utility, it does not reflect all of the corporate attributes that have manifestations of
culture. For instance ideological attributes can be important in that they condition ethics, and this
has not been extracted from the study. The exploration of the manifestations of corporate culture by
Hofstede et al has provided a landmark approach, and the Deal and Kennedy model, while very
useful, limited the study undertaken. In this paper it has been shown that it should be possible to
use a broader model, that arising from knowledge cybernetics, to explore more fully the
manifestation of corporate culture.
8. References
Argyris, C., 1976, Single Loop and Double Loop Models in Research on Decision Making,
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,September,vol.21.p.363377.
17

Austin. T.L., 2005, A Comparison of the Cognitive Development of Outcome Based Versus non
Outcome Based Education: An Exploration of South African Learners, Doctoral Thesis, Rand
Afrikaans University, South Africa. Also see http://etd.uj.ac.za/theses/available/etd05232006
145736/restricted/Thesis.pdf,accessedApril2007.
Beer, S., 1979, The Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, New York.
Boisot, M., Child, J., 1988, From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: explaining China's
emerging economic order, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 600-28.
Bond, M. H., 1988, Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of
values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55.6, 1009-1015.
Bormann,G.,1985,SymbolicConvergenceTheory:acommunicationformulation,J.of
Communication,35(4,Autumn)128138.
BriggsMyers,I.,2000,AnIntroductiontoTypes:AGuidetoUnderstandingYourResultsonthe
MyersBriggsTypesIndicator,CPP,PaloAlto,CA.Revisedformthe1998edition.
Brodbeck FC, Frese,M, Javidan,M, and Kroll, FG (2002) Leadership made in Germany: low on
compassion, high on performance Academy of Management Executive 16,1,16-30
Butterfield, F., 1982, China: Alive in the Bitter Sea, Times Books, New York, NY.
Chen ZX and Francesco AM (2000) Employee demography, organisational commitment and
turnover intentions in China: do cultural differences matter? Human Relations 53(6) 869-887
Clark, P., Staunton, N., 1989, Innovation in Technology and Organisation, Routledge, London.
Cocchiarella, N., 1991, Formal Ontology, Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, eds., Smith,
B., Burkhardt, H., Philosophia, pp. 640, Verlag, Munich.
Dahl, S., 2004, Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge, Middlesex University
Discussion Paper No. 26, Middlesex University Business School, London, UK. Also see
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=658202, accessed November 2005.
Dalmau,T.,Dick,B.,1987,Politics,conflictandculture:ajourneyintocomplexity.:
Interchange,ChapelHill,Qld.Alsosee
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzbdick/dlitt/DLitt_P23pcc.pdf
Deal,T.E.,Kennedy,A.A.,1982, Corporatecultures:Theritesandritualsofcorporatelife.
AddisonWesley,Reading,MA.
Deal, T., Kennedy, A., 1988, Corporate Cultures - The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Penguin Books, London.
Demetriou, A., Doise, W. & Van Lieshout, C.F.M., 1998, Life-span developmental psychology,
John Wiley & Sons, New York
Dodd, C., 1995, Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, Brown & Benchmark Publishers,
Dubuque, IA.
Fan, Y., 2002, A classification of Chinese Culture, Cross Cultural Management, Volume 7,
Number 2, pp 3-10.
Fontaine, R., Richardson,S., 2005, Cultural Values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays and Indians
Compared, Cross Cultural Management, 12(4)63-77.
Freud, S., 1962, Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
England, originally published in English in 1926 under the title The Problem of Lay-Analyses,
Maerker-Branden, NY.
Funder D., 1997, The Personality Puzzle. Norton, New York.
Giglioli, P.P., 1972, Language and Social Context. Penguin Books, Middlesex,UK.
Gouveia, V.V., Ros, M., 2002, The Hofstede and Schwartz Models for Classifying Individualsim at
the Cultural Level: their relation to macro-social and macro-economic variables,
http://www.cchla.ufpb.br/pospsi/autores/valdiney/the_hofstede_and_ schwartz_ models.htm
Guo,K.J.,2006,StrategyforOrganizationalChangeinStateOwnedCommercialBanksin
China:ADevelopingOrganizationalDevelopmentView.DoctoralThesis,Facultyof
BusinessandLaw,LiverpoolJohnMooresUniversity.
Hall, E. T., 1984, The dance of life : the other dimension of time. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor
Hall, W., 1995, Managing Cultures: Making Strategic Relationships Work, John Wiley & Sons,
Habermas, J., 1971, Knowledge and Human Interests, Beacon Press, Boston.
Habermas, J., 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinamann, London.
18

Heidegger , M., 1927, Sein und Zeit, and also published as Heidegger, M., Stanbaugh, J., Sight
and Time, 1996, State University of New York Press.
Hofstede, G., 1980, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
Hofstede, G., 1987, The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories, In Dymsza,
Vamberly, International Business Knowledge, Routledge, London, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G., Neujen, B., Daval Ohayv, D., Sanders, G., 1990, Measuring Organisational
Cultures: A Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(2)286-316
Hofstede, G., 1991, Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill: London.
Hofstede, G., 1994, Management scientists are human, Management Science, 40, 1, 4-13.
Hofstede, G. 2001, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organisations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.
Hofstede, G, 2002, Dimensions do not exist; A reply to Brendan Sweeney Human Relations 55,11,
1355-1361
Hofstede, G., 2005, Dimensionalizing Cultures: the Hofstede Model in Context,
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/introduction.htm, accessed Jan. 2007.
House R, Javidan,M, Hanges, P and Dorfman P (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to Project GLOBE Journal of World
Business 37,1,3,
House R, Javidan,M, Hanges, P and Dorfman P (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to Project GLOBE Journal of World
Business 37,1,3,
Husserl, E., 1950, Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenolgie und phanomenologischen Philosophie,
vol.1, in Husserliana, vol. 3. Also see Husserl, 1950-, XIX. 1911: Philosophie als strenge
Wissenschaft, Logos, vol. 1. English translation by Lauer, Q., 1965, Husserl, Harper and Row,
New York
Hutchings K and Murray Australian Expatriates experiences in working behind the Bamboo
Curtain: an examination of Guanxi in post-Communist China Asian Business Management
1,1-21
Hutchings K and Weir D (2004) Networking in China and Arab nations: lessons for international
Managers Presented at British Academy of Management Conference 2004
Jackson, T., 2001 Cultural values and management ethics: a 10 Nation study Human Relations
54(10) 1267-1302
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., 1991, Organisations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organisational
Behaviour and Change, Jossey-Bass Inc, USA.
Kluckhohn, C., 1962, Universal categories of culture, in Tax, S., (Ed.), Anthropology Today:
Selections (pp. 304-20), University of Chicago Press , Chicago
Kluckhohn, F., Strodbeck, F., 1961, Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Ill., Row Peterson.
Kolb, D.A., 1974. Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952).
Li, P., 1998, Towards a geocentric framework of organisational form: a holistic, dynamic and
paradoxical approach, Organisation Studies, 19, 5, 829-61.
Li, J., Lam, K., Fu, P.P., 2000, Family-oriented collectivism and its effects on firm performance: a
comparison between overseas Chinese and Foreign Firms in China, International Journal of
Organisational Analysis, Volume Eight, Number Four, 364-379.
Liang, SY., WU, W.C, , 2001, T h e R o o t s o f I l l n e s s P a r t 1 - J i n g , Q i , a n d S h e n ,
Syl Wushi Newsletter, Vol.1, No. 4,
http://www.shouyuliang.com/newsletter/v1n4/v1n4a1.shtml, accessed June 2005.
Liu S., 2003, Cultures within culture: unity and diversity of two generations of employees in stateowned enterprises, Human Relations, 56,4,387-41
Lowe, S., Oswick, C., 1996, Culture: The Invisible Filters, Ch. 6, 90-116 in Gatley, S. Lessem, R. &
Altman, Y. (Eds.) Corporate management: A transcultural odyssey, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996
Lundberg, C., 1985, On the feasibility of cultural interventions in organisations, in
Frost, P.J. et al, Organisational culture, Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.
19

May,R.,1991,TheCryforMyth.SouvenirPress(EducationalandAcademic)Ltd.,London
McSweeney, B., 2001, The essentials of scholarship: a reply to Geert Hofstede Human Relations
55,11,1363-1372
McSweeney, B., 2002, Hofstedes Model Of National Cultural Differences and their
Consequences: a Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis, Human Relations, 55(1)89-118.
Also see http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc.
Marshall,S.P.,1995,SchemesinProblemSolving.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK,
Martin, J., 1992, Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives New York: Oxford University
Press
Maturana, H.R., 1975, The Organization of the Living: A Theory of the Living Organization,
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7: 313-332.
Maturana, H., 1988, Reality: the search for objectivity or the Quest for a compelling argument.
Irish J. Psych. 9:25-82.
Mead R., 1994, International Management: cross-cultural dimensions, Blackwell, Oxford.
Mingers, J., 1995, Self Producing Systems. Academic Press, Mew York.
Mwaura,G., Sutton,J., Roberts, D., 1998, Corporate and national culture - an irreconcilable
dilemma for the hospitality manager? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 10(6)212-220
Newell, S., 1999, The Transfer of Management Knowledge to China: building learning
communities rather than translating western textbooks? Education and Training, 41(6/7)286293.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
Osborn, A., 1934, Edmund Husserl and his Logical Investigations, International Press, New York.
Peirce, C.S., 1931-58, Collected Papers vol. I-VIII. (eds.) Hartshorne and Weiss, Harvard University
Press, Casmbridge MA.
Piaget, J., 1950, The psychology of intelligence, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Pye, L., 1992, Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style, Quorum Books, New York, NY.
Redding, G., 1998, The changing business scene in Pacific Asia, in McDonald, F. and Thorpe, R.,
(eds), Organisational Strategy and Technological Adaptation to Global Change.
Basingstoke: Macmillan Business, 22-36.
Rokeach, M., 1968, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: a theory of organisational change, Josey-Bass
Inc., San Francisco.
Rosenbaum,W.A.,1972,PoliticalCulture,ThomasNelsonandSonsLtd.,London,UK
Ruiz,M.,1997,TheFourAgreements,AmberAllenPublishing,SanRafael,California,USA
Scarbrough, H., 1996, Blackboxes, hostages and prisoners, Organisation Studies, 16, 991-1020.
Schlevogt, K. A., 2000, Strategies, structures and processes for managing uncertainty and
complexity: worldwide learning from the Chinese organisational model of private enterprises,
in Rahim, M. A.; Golembiewski, R. T. and Mackenzie, K. D. (eds) Current Topics in
Management, Vol. 5, Stamford, Conn: JAI Press, 305-328
Schwaninger, M., 2001, Intelligent Organisations: An Integrative Framework, Sys. Res. 18,
pp.137-158.
Schwartz, S.H., 1990, Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements, Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.
Schwartz, S.H., 1994, Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In
U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitibasi, S.C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 85-119), Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.
Schwartz, S.H. & Bardi, A., 2001, Value hierarchies across culture: Taking a similarities
perspective, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-90.
Schwarz, E., 1994 (September), A Trandisciplinary Model for the Emergence, Self-organisation
and Evolution of Viable Systems. Presented at the International Information, Systems
Architecture and Technology, Technical University of Wroclaw, Szklaska Poreba, Polland
Schwarz, E., 1997, Towards a Holistic Cybernetics: From Science through Epistemology to Being,
Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 4(1)17-50.
Schutz, A., Luckmann, T., 1974, The Structures of the Lifeworld. Heinamann, London.
Shaw, S., Meier, J., 1994, Second-generation' MNCs in China, China Business Review, 10-15.
20

Smith,P., 2002, Cultures consequences: something old and something new Human Relations
55,1,119-135
Sorokin, P.A., 1937-1942, Social and Cultural Dynamics, in 4 volumes. Amer. Book. Co. N.Y.
Speece, M., 2001, Asian Management Style: an introduction, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Volume Sixteen, Number Two, 86-96.
Spencer-Oatey, H., 2000, Culturally speaking: managing rapport through talk across cultures,
Continuum, London.
Sternberg, R.J., 1996, Cognitive psycholog,. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York
Sunshine B, Wang, Y.H. 2003, Qi, Rui Dan and Self-excitation, Journal of World Science 1, 197
212, Article No. 20030107,
http://www.nobelac.com/science/jws/jws200301/Web/paperforJWS/new333qipaperjws.pdf,
accessed June 2005.
Triandis, H.C., Suh, E.M., 2002, Cultural Influences on Personality, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 53:133
60. Also see https://psy-web.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/awei/Lecture%20notes/triandis%20ann
%20rev%20psychol%202002.pdf, accessed January 2007.
Trompenaars, F., 1997, Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business,
McGraw-Hill,
Wang, J., Wang G.G., Ruona W.E.A., Rojewski, J.W.,, 2005, Confucian values and the
implications for International HRD Human Resource Development International 8,3,311-326
Weed, L., 2002, Kant's Noumenon and Sunyata, Asian Philosophy, 12(2)77-95, July.
Williams,A.,Dobson,P.,Walters,M.,1993,OrganizationalCulture:neworganizational
approaches.IPM,London
Williamson, D., 2002, Forward from a critique of Hofstedes model of national culture Human
Relations 55,11,1373-1395
Wollheim, R., 1999, On The Emotions, Yale University Press.
Yeh R S., 1989, On Hofstedes treatment of Chinese and Japanese values, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Management, Volume 6, (1) 149-60
Yolles, M.I., 1999, Management Systems: a viable approach, Financial Times Pitman, London.
Yolles, M.I., 2000, From Viable Systems to Surfing the Organisation, Journal of Applied Systems,
1(1)127-142
Yolles, M.I., 2006, Organisations a Complex Systems: an introduction to knowledge cybernetics,
Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT, USA.
Yolles, M.I., Guo, K., 2003, Paradigmatic Metamorphosis and Organisational Development, Sys.
Res., 20, 177-199.
Yolles, M.I., Iles, P., 2006, Understanding Public-Private Alliances through Knowledge
Cybernetics: ethical frameworks and trust, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, in
process.
Yolles, M., 2007, Exploring Cultures through Knowledge Cybernetics, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Competence and Management (JCCM) 5, pp. 19-74.
Yolles, M.I, 2007a, Modelling pathologies in social collectives, European J. International
Management, 1(1/2)81-103. see http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f987411265121013.pdf

Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/

21