List of speakers
Back to the program

  Culture, globalization and tourism.
Is Mac World waiting for us around the corner ?

Dr. Huib WURSTEN - Partner ITIM International, Amsterdam, Netherland

 

Slideshow

 

Not long ago a lead article in ‘The Economist’¹ was dedicated to culture as an explanation for behavior. The author’s conclusion, after reviewing a number of recent books on the influence of culture by authors such as Fukuyama (Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity) ; Harrison (Who prospers ? How cultural values shape Economic and political success) ; and Huntington (The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order), was extremely cautious. His subtitle was "Which civilization you belong to matters less than you might think”.

Also in the marketing world one can see that especially authors from the United States have a strong feeling that economic development, having access to the same information and being in contact via internet would lead to : “converging needs and tastes of consumers, which would, in turn facilitate standardization of marketing and advertising. Economies of scale in production would lead to low price/high quality ratios. which consumers were supposed to prefer over the products/brands they were used to.”² 

Influential marketing Gurus like Harvard professor Ted Levitt's ³, were convinced that: The world's needs and desires have irrevocably homogenized . . . Everywhere everything gets more and more like everything else as the world's preference structure is relentlessly homogenized... Ancient differences in national tastes or modes of doing business disappear''

The strange thing is that people like Ted Levitt as well as the author of the article in The Economist are having strong opinions on the matter at hand, but are ignoring empirical evidence. The people being quoted in The Economist all have different basic premises (historical, philosophical and religious), they try to link to views about the world. No wonder that the author’s conclusions are so inconclusive. It is, however, worth considering what he would have found if he had included some empirical approaches.

Looking at the research findings of people like Hofstede⁴ it’s clear that it is possible to make verifiable statements based upon comparative empirical research.

Following are some observations around the question if values are converging as a result of globalization, or if they are more consistent then some people think.

Culture is having different layers. Some of the layers are superficial and subject to change. Some are more fundamental and are consistent over time.

Culture is like an onion. It’s having different layers.

On the most superficial layer of culture, symbolic behavior, one can see worldwide trends. Everywhere one can find brands like NIKE, Coca Cola, Marlboro and Mac Donalds. Even in a tea-drinking nation like Japan one can find the American coffee chain Starbucks. This is leading some to the possible observation that the world is Americanising. This effect cannot be denied. But it is a very superficial element of behavior. There is a all-human tendency to imitate success and it is certainly true that the US has been very successful the last fifteen years in terms of economic power. As a result people everywhere try to imitate this success on a symbolic level. But : If one scratches at the surface other preferences are found. Interestingly enough this identification on this level is changing every 15 years or so. Around 1985 not the US was the most powerful economic power, but Japan. In the whole world people were trying to imitate the Japanese. All organizations, including American, were trying to introduce quality circles to improve what they were doing. Around that time the CEO of Philips said in a worldwide address to his personnel :” people we have to be more like the Japanese if we want to survive in the international competition “

If one goes back a little more in time, to the late 50’s Germany was having that position. Because of the “economic miracle” in Germany, everybody was trying to introduce the so-called DIN (German Industry Norm) norm in his or her own societies.

This is a little bit less superficial if one goes to the second layer : heroes and anti-heroes.

This is a level where identification models are used to show how to be successful and models showing how never to be.

In advertising the agencies learned the hard way that the way to promote products, services etc. in, for instance Germany (expert information) should be done in a different way then in the UK (humor), France (style) or The Netherlands (anti-heroes).

One example about reward systems : in the US it is very effective to reward individual performance with a portrait on the wall : “employee of the month”.

In a country like Denmark this is the biggest punishment one can get. It’s making this person the bait of biting sarcastic jokes of their colleagues for the rest of their existence.

This is stronger if one goes to the third layer : Rituals

One example : a ritual we all know about : having meetings. In the whole world people are having meetings. What one expects a meeting to be is different from culture to culture. In some cultures : a place to discuss, in other cultures a platform for the Boss to communicate decisions to the others. The effects can be very strange if the people from the different cultures are having common meetings without awareness of these differences.

The deepest layer of culture is Values

Professor Geert Hofstede carried out fundamental research into the dominant values of countries and the way in which they influence behavior in organizations. Original data were based on an extensive IBM database for which between 1967 and 1973, 116,000 questionnaires were used in 72 countries and in 20 languages. 

Analyzing his data, Hofstede found five value clusters being the most fundamental in understanding and explaining the differences in answers to the single questions. The results were validated against about 40 cross-cultural studies from a variety of disciplines.
Hofstede gave scores for 56 countries.on these 5 dimensions. Later research partly done by others have extended this to 85 countries. The combined scores for each country explain variations in behavior of people and organizations. The scores indicate the relative differences between cultures.
Hofstede identified five dimensions of national culture : power distance (PDI), individualism/collectivism (IDV), masculinity/femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and Confucian Dynamism index (CDI) .

A short description of the five dimensions.

Power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally. In large power-distance cultures everybody has his/her rightful place in society, there is respect for old age, and status is important to show power. In small power-distance cultures people try to look younger and powerful people try to look less powerful.
It’s the opinion of the author of this article that this dimension creates about 80 percent of the problems in international organizations that are trying to operate with multicultural teams.”

People in countries like the US, Canada and the UK have a low power-distance index and are more likely to accept ideas like empowerment, matrix management and flat organizations. Business schools around the world tend to base their teachings on low power-distance values. Yet, most countries in the world have a high power-distance index.

In individualistic cultures people look after themselves and their immediate family only; in collectivist cultures people belong to in-groups who look after them in exchange for loyalty. In individualist cultures, values are in the person, in collectivist cultures, identity is based in the social network to which one belongs. In individualist cultures there is more explicit, verbal communication, In collectivist cultures communication is more implicit.

In masculine cultures the dominant values are achievement and success. The dominant values in feminine cultures are caring for others and quality of life. In masculine cultures performance and achievement are important. Status is important to show success. Feminine cultures have a people orientation, small is beautiful and status is not so important.

Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations. In cultures of strong uncertainty avoidance, there is a need for rules and formality to structure life. Competence is a strong value resulting in belief in experts, as opposed to weak uncertainty-avoidance cultures with belief in practitioners. In weak uncertainty-avoidance cultures people tend to be more innovative and entrepreneurial

The last element of culture is the Confucian dynamism index which is the extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic future-orientated perspective rather than a near term point of view. Low scoring countries are usually those under the influence of monotheistic religious systems, such as the Christian, Islamic or Jewish systems, and people in these countries believe there is an absolute truth. In high scoring countries, for example those practicing Buddhism, Shintoism or Hinduism, people say truth depends on time and context.

The issue now is if these values, and the scores of countries are changing over time. It’s good to look at the findings of other research replicating the research of Hofstede.

A Danish scholar, Sondergard ⁵, found 60 of these (sometimes small scale) replications. A meta analyses confirmed the five dimensions and the scores of countries.
A recent replication was carried out by including Hofstede's questions in the EMS, the European Media & Marketing Survey. (see 2) A research survey of print media readership and TV audience levels within the upscale consumer group in Europe (EU, Switzerland and Norway), (1996/1997). The country scores found in EMS were similar to those found 20years earlier, and were particularly strong, when used single source, to explain diversity in consumption and ownership of products as measured in EMS.Cultural values. De Mooij in her analysis of the findings states : 

“Although there is evidence of convergence of economic systems, there is no evidence of convergence of peoples' value systems. On the contrary, there is evidence that with converging incomes, people's habits diverge. More discretionary income will give people more freedom to express themselves and they will do that according to their own, specific value pa Values of national culture influence, for example, the volume of mineral water and soft drinks consumed, ownership of pets, of cars, the choice of car type, ownership of insurance, possession of private gardens, readership of newspapers and books, TV viewing, ownership of consumer electronics and computers, usage of the Internet, sales of video-cassettes, usage of cosmetics, toiletries, deodorants and hair care products, consumption of fresh fruit, ice cream and frozen food, usage of toothpaste and numerous other products and services, fast moving consumer goods and durables.

These differences are stable or become stronger over time.
Culture's influence is persistent cultural values are stable and with converging incomes they will become more manifest.” 

2 Culture is consistent but not static  

The problem is that a great many people don’t recognize these ‘gross group’ descriptions as having an influence and being consistent over time. On average people tend to feel : “I am very different from my parents and my grandparents are very different from my parents”. The reason for this ‘true’ observation is that usually the visible aspects of culture are compared. In so doing, it appears to be easy to establish that the, clearly visible, behavior of the present generation is different from the behavior of past generations.

Saying that culture is consistent does not imply that the behavior is consistent. Our parents and grandparents behaved differently because they lived in totally different conditions. Who had to deal with issues such as globalization, the European Union, Internet, mobile telephones, etc. fifty years ago ?

The world is changing rapidly and we are being forced to adjust to these changes and to develop new behavior. But the development of this new behavior is constantly influenced by the set of collective preferences that we have designated as mind sets ?

If people become aware of themselves in relation to their environment, they are able to make new choices. But when examining history, we find that the choices people make are by no means random. We recognize regularities, ‘scripts’, which can be traced back to deeply rooted values that give direction to their (re) actions Hofstede (cf. notes 4 & 5) defines culture as the collective, mental programming which distinguishes one group or category of people from another. This programming, or mind?set, influences patterns of thinking, which are reflected in the meaning people give to the different aspects of their lives, and therefore help shape the institutions of a society.

This does not mean that everyone in a particular society is programmed in exactly the same way. There are considerable individual differences. But when fundamental values of various societies are compared, ‘majority preferences’ are found to exist, which recur again and again as a result of the way children are brought up by their parents and the educational system. And when we examine how societies organize themselves, these majority preferences turn out to have a modifying influence at both micro and macro levels. They appear to have an influence on the ways in which good leadership is defined ; on how the decision making process is structured, as well as on the way people monitor how policies are implemented. In short, everything that has to do with organizational behavior.

3 Culture is not the same as identity  

Almost everybody feels emotional attachment to one group or another. Sometimes it’s a nation or a region. Sometimes it’s a football club. It’s a known fact that a club like Manchester United is having fan clubs all over the world, wearing the Manchester shirts and identifying with the team. Sometimes these feelings of identification are quite strong, leading to the infamous fights between supporters of the different clubs.

Don’t confuse this with culture. In the words of Hofstede ⁶ : “Identities consist of people’s answers to the question: where do I belong? They are based on mutual images and stereotypes and on emotions linked to the outer layers of the onion…Populations that fight each other on the basis of their different ”felt” identities may very well share the same values. Examples are the linguistic regions in Belgium, the religions in Northern Ireland, and tribal groups in Africa.”

Sometimes it’s confusing that people try willingly to create identities different from their environment in spite of sharing the same values. I mention here two of these possible reasons :

The sour grapes

This label is related to the fox in Aesop's fable who tried to seize an attractive bunch of grapes, failed, and then announced that he had not really wanted them in the first place because they were sour. Like the fox, many of us decide that what we cannot have we didn't really want in the first place. This is what is happening with some minority groups in different countries.
If people discover that they will never be able to compete with the majority culture because of lack of skills (or opportunities) they sometimes create identity by claiming they are focusing on different (better) goals in first place.

The narcissism of the small difference

One way people define themselves is by comparing themselves with the ones in their environment. And sometime people create difference where there is none to create their own self-definition. This can lead to the narcissism of the small difference.

This is a concept introduced by Freud. Especially people that are very much alike have a tendency to emphasize the small differences. Mostly it is a matter of style musical preference, cooking and dressing. This of course very superficial and can sometimes even lead to style surfing.

 4 Grammar, style and dialect  

A repetitive remark made by participants in my seminars is : I recognize what you are saying about my country. But, the people in the North of my country are different compared to the people in North. The people in the South are different from the people in the East.

This is clearly evident for people borne and raised in such a country. Belgians are convinced that people from West Flanders are different from the people in East Flanders. The Dutch are convinced that Rotterdammers are different from Amsterdammers. Americans are sure that Americans from the East coast are different compared to compatriots from the West coast.

A nice test is to ask the opinion of outsiders working with Belgians, Dutch and Americans. Then the surprising reaction is mostly : well you are a local so you know best about these differences. But what I see is: Belgian, Dutch, American behavior.

How to explain this ? Comparisons are always dangerous. But the best way is to compare the basic values of culture with the grammar of a language system.

Nobody will deny that the basic grammar systems of English, Chinese, Russian and Sanskrit are different. Still people sharing one basic grammar system can be different in style and dialect. This is the way to understand most of the regional differences in culture. In almost all countries in the world people share a homogeneous (majority) culture. But styles and other elements of the superficial layers of the onion can be different

5 Imagined and True realities. The problem of MBA programs. 

If one compares official organizational charts of organizations worldwide they look very much the same everywhere. The same is true about all other relevant issues for nowadays global business players: strategies ; HRM-systems, including reward techniques ; management approaches like MBO ; appraisal instruments like 360 degree feed back systems etc.

Seemingly the organizations are ran in the same way. In MBA programs everywhere the same theories are taught and the general feeling is seemingly that organizational behavior is culture neutral. 

An analysis of these theories learns that most of the handbooks of management, marketing, economy, etc, are coming from Anglo-Saxon countries : USA, Canada and the UK. The students from MBA programs assume that what they are reading about is just the latest development, the latest description of best practices. After graduating they try then to implement these best practices in organizations of their own countries. If then after a time they discover it’s not successful they blame the failure to the people involved. Accusing them of being resistant, backward, stubborn and ignorant. What they don’t realize is that the promoted theories are not wrong, but have a value context that is fitting the motivations of the Anglo Saxon culture group, but not necessarily the motivations of people in their own country. This is not something that is to blame to the Management Guru’s. Frequently I heard these Gurus’s say: you tell me that this is not possible in your country. Tell me then please about the theories and research from your culture. Then most of time there is silence. The Non Anglo-Saxon cultures should do much more in making the realities in their own cultures more explicit. They should be more aware that there is a difference between the “Imagined reality” (assuming for instance that what is true or valid in the USA is also true and valid everywhere) is different from “True reality”.
This difference between “I reality” and “T reality” is for instance explaining why Philips Netherlands decided recently to drop performance pay. This is something that could motivate employees in Masculine cultures but is not in Feminine cultures like the Netherlands.

6 Culture, sustainable development and tourism.

What are the conclusions one can draw from this analysis for the subject of sustainable tourism ?

One important element is that in discussions about this subject it is necessary to define culture and to have common agreement about the layer of culture being discussed.

In most cases it’s about the superficial layers. Most tourists, if they are interested in culture will focus on the symbols, heroes, rituals. In short the things one can see in museums, during folkloristic festivals, in theme parks, etc. and will not really be confronted with the real values of the culture they are visiting.

Even stronger: it’s mostly the locals that will be confronted with the different kinds of expectations and behavior. It is certainly a must for the tourist industry to realize this and to develop skills for their personnel to cope with this diversity. It’s simply a matter of good business to be customer oriented.

Secondly : It’s a revolutionary finding in marketing that after a certain level of income culture makes that the choices are diverging again, based upon the 5 value dimensions of Hofstede.

Up till now the questions being asked in the research are not in the field of tourism. It will be a missed chance if the tourist industry will ignore this new approach in finding new ways of covering for the different customer needs. 

Thirdly : sustainable (tourism) development can only be achieved if the approach is fitting the local value structure.
One element of this is good governance.
This is not a culture free subject.
The issues of good governance in Mexico are different compared to the issues in The USA or Switzerland. This is particularly interesting looking at the ideas of the United Nations in promoting sustainable tourism development.

Tourism is seen as one of the sectors that can help to achieve the “Millennium Development Goals” through which the UN is addressing the many dimensions of human development, including poverty eradication, the protection of the environment, and the promotion of democracy and good governance. 

In this context the UN organized a conference beginning of 2002 in Cancun Mexico. The participants of this International Colloquium on Regional Governance and Sustainable Development in Tourism-driven Economies discussed decentralization and public policy issues from the perspective of regions where economy is driven by the tourism industry. 

One of the conclusions was that :

“ Although economic aspects of tourism development are often taking front stage, such as attracting investment, building infrastructure, etc., not enough attention is given to the need to establish appropriate governance mechanisms and systems to deal with tourism.
Effective and transparent political institutions; an efficient and accountable administration; and mechanisms to foster participation of citizens in the decision-making process are essential factors in ensuring that the potential benefits of tourism development are maximized and its drawbacks minimized”. 

This is something that in the “ I reality” everybody can agree to.
Problem is however that in the “T reality”, the issues of what is called good governance are different related to the cultural background of the countries involved.

In masculine and individualistic countries like USA with short term thinking and a clear hero culture the CEO’s of companies have to show successes to the shareholders constantly otherwise the shareholders go away and invest somewhere else immediately. The danger will always be that there will be that these heroes will be tempted to manipulate the figures.

In feminine, low power distance cultures like in The Netherlands the problem will be that the consensus mentality can lead to an avoidance of free competition and the tendency to make secret agreements between the different so called competitors.

In high power distance cultures like France and Italy in Europe, all countries in Asia and all countries in Latin America and Africa the problem will be that the controlling institutes in the “I reality” are considered to be independent but in the “T reality” can be subordinate to the power structure.

In collectivist cultures, like in most African countries, the problem can be that the ruling in group will help and involve the people of their own tribe, ethnic group, region or religious group, but will have a tendency to exclude the others. ⁷ 

All this is leading to one conclusion: also in the world of (sustainable) tourism there should be an awareness that naïve concepts about globalization can actually do harm instead of help. Also if there is no doubt about the good intentions.

 

Slideshow

 

1 The Economist - 8 febr, 1997 - pg. 26. Back to the text

2 M. De Mooij. The future is Predictable for international marketers : converging incomes lead to diverging consumer behaviour - International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 N° 2, 2000, pp. 103-113. University Press. Back to the text

3 T. Levitt. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92-102. Back to the text

4 G. Hofstede. (1980a) Culture’s consequences : International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage. Back to the text

5 M. Sondergaard. (1994) Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization studies, 15, 447-456. Back to the text

6 Geert H Hofstede. (2001) – Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications. Back to the text

7 ITIM International made comparisons between 6 culture clusters. Good governance is one of the elements being compared. For information about this and 20 other comparisons (like delegation and leadership) : ITIM@itim.org. Back to the text