Ulusal Kültürün İletişim, Liderlik, Performans Ve Motivasyona Etkisi Ve Yönetim Modellerinin Kültürler Arası Uygulanabilirliği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 75 - 100, 01.10.2019

Yusuf Yüksel Tuncay Durna

Öz

Küreselleşme ile birlikte artan etkileşim, toplumlar, kurumlar, ülkeler ve bireylerin benzerlik ve farklılıklarının daha fazla tartışılmasını beraberinde getirmiştir. Tüm bu unsurlar arasında artan etkileşime ilave olarak, uluslararası kurumların daha etkili hale gelmesi ile birlikte, yönetim prensipleri, modelleri ve teknolojinin farklı ülkelerde yer alan kurumlar arasında transferi yaygın bir uygulamaya dönüşmüştür. Bu tarz transferlerin kurumların yaşadıkları sorunlara çözüm olabileceği ve artan karmaşa ve rekabet ortamında kurumlara katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmüştür. Bu çevresel koşullar altında, sosyal ve ticari etkileşim ve yönetim modellerinin transferi sırasında daha başarılı olmak adına diğer toplumların ve ülkelerin kültürünü anlamaya yönelik kültürlerarası araştırmaların sayısında artış görülmüştür. Bu makalede, bu geniş literatürün incelemesi yapılmıştır. Bu literatür esas alınarak ulusal kültür ve iş yaşamı ile ilgili Hofstede tarafından ortaya konan kültürel boyutlar bağlamında kültürel değerlerin benzeşmesi ve farklılaşması tartışılarak bu yöndeki araştırmalara katkı sunmak amaçlanmaktadır. Farklı ülkelerdeki kurumların yapısında ve günlük uygulamalarında belli bir oranda benzeşme olsa da bu kurumlarda çalışan bireylerin düşünme tarzları, davranışları, inançları ve kültürel değerleri noktasında çok az benzerlik bulunduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Bu varsayımdan hareketle, bu makalede, farklı ulusal kültür özelliklerinin iletişim tercihleri, liderlik tarzları, motivasyon ve performans yönetim
sistemlerine yansımalarına bakılmaktadır. Bu makale, kurumların farklı
ülke kaynaklı bir yönetim modeli ve prensibini kendi kurumuna uyarlarken
ulusal kültür farklılıklarını dikkate alması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ulusal Kültür,, Hofstede’nin Kültürel Boyutları,, İletişim,, Liderlik,, Motivasyon,, Performans Yönetimi

The Effect of National Culture on Communication, Leadership, Performance, Motivation and the Adaptability of Management Models across Cultures

Öz

The emergence of globalization has brought us into closer contact with
one another which inevitably forefronts the issue of similarities and
differences between societies, organizations, nations, and individuals.
With the increased interaction of the societies, organizations, individuals
and the increasing dominance of multinational organizations in this new
era, the transfer of management principles, technology, and business
systems between the organizations has become a common practice in
the attempt to find new ways to deal with their problems and to survive
in the increasingly turbulent and competitive environment. In such an
environment, especially, cross-cultural research of organizations increased
in volume in terms of understanding to the culture of other societies and
nations for the success of social and business interaction and transferability
of management models and principles. By reviewing the literature on this
issue, this article aims to contribute to this line of research by discussing
the convergence or divergence of national cultures and related work
values based on the cultural dimensions stated by Hofstede. This article
suggests that although a degree of convergence occurs in the structure
and ordinary practices of organizations, there is little convergence in the
thinking, behavior, beliefs, and values of people in organizations. Based
on this assumption, this article looks at the reflections of different national
cultural characteristics on communication preferences, leadership styles,
motivation and performance management systems. This article shows
that all organizations need to take into account differences in the national cultural features before adapting a management model or principle
originated in another country.

Anahtar Kelimeler

National Culture,, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions,, Communication,, Leadership,, Motivation,, Performance Management

Kaynakça

• 1. Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. The Academy of Management Review, 8, 226-232.
• 2. Adler, N. J., & Graham, J. L. (1989). Cross-cultural interaction: The international comparison fallacy. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 515-537.
• 3. Adler, N. J., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Academic and professional countries of discourse: Generating knowledge on transnational human resource management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 551- 559.
• 4. Awasthi, V, N, Chow, C.W., & Wu, A. (1998). Performance measure and resource expenditure choices in a teamwork environment: The effects of national culture. Management Accounting Research, 9, 119-138.
• 5. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
• 6. Calori, R., Lubatkin, M. & Very, P. (1994). Control mechanisms in cross-border acquisitions: An international comparison. Organization Studies, 15, 361-379.
• 7. Child, J., & Kieser, A. (1981). Organizational and managerial role in British and West German companies: An examination of the culture-free thesis. In D.J. Hickson & C. J. McMillan (Eds.), Organization and nation: The Aston Programme IV (pp. 51-73). Hampshire: Gower Publishing Co.
• 8. Collins, D. (1998). Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London: Routledge.
• 9. Cullen, R. (1995). Public sector performance and private sector management. In D. P. Cushman & S. S. King (Eds.), Communicating organizational change: A management perspective (pp.147-190). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• 10. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J.P. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 232-274.
• 11. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
• 12. Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L. (1993). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint. Bedford: St Martin’s.
• 13. Fey, C. F. (2005). Opening the black box of motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of Sweden and Russia. International Business Review, 14, 345-367.
• 14. Goodman, M. B. (Ed.) (1994). Corporate Communication: Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• 15. Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
• 16. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
• 17. Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.
• 18. Hofstede, G. (1980b). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 14- 42.
• 19. Huang, X., & Vliert, E. V. (2003). Where intrinsic job satisfaction fails to work: National moderators of intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 159-179.
• 20. Jaeger, A. M. (1986). Organizational development and national culture: Where is the fit? Academy of Management Review, 11, 178-190.
• 21. Kedia, B. L., & Bhagat, R. S. (1988). Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 559- 571.
• 22. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320.
• 23. Koopman, P. L., Hartog, D. N. & Konrad, E. (1999). National culture and leadership profiles in Europe: Some results from the GLOBE study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 503-520.
• 24. Lorens, F.J., Molina, L.M., & Verdu, A.J. (2005). Flexibility of manufacturing systems, strategic change and performance, International Journal of Production Economics, 98, 273-289.
• 25. Martin, E. (1995). Communication in Asian job interviews. In D. P. Cushman & S. S. King (Eds.), Communicating organizational change: A management perspective (pp.275-309). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• 26. Mueller, F. (1994). Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization. Organization Studies, 15, 407-428.
• 27. Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 753-779.
• 28. Olie, R. (1994). Shades of culture and institutions in international mergers. Organization Studies, 15, 381-405.
• 29. Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J., & Naumov, A.I. (1997). Russian managers’ beliefs about work: Beyond the stereotypes. Journal of World Business, 32, 258-276.
• 30. Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 8-26.
• 31. Redding G. S. (1994). Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization Studies, 15, 323-359. 32. Ruben, B. D. (2005). Excellence in Higher Education: A Guide to
• Assessment, Planning and Improvement in Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.
• 33. Schneider, S.C. (1989). Strategy formulation: The impact of national culture. Organization Studies, 10, 149-168.
• 34. Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336.
• 35. Smircich, L., & Calas, M. F. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts & L. Porters (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, 228-263. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
• 36. Tayeb, M. (1994). Organizations and national culture: Methodology considered. Organization Studies, 15, 429-445.
• 37. Witherspoon, P. D. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.