Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior Across Cultures

257 Pages·1997·17.32 MB·English

by  P. Christopher Earley

Face,
Harmony,
and Social Structure
This page intentionally left blank
Face,
Harmony,
and Social Structure
An Analysis of Organizational Behavior
across Cultures
P. Christopher Earley
New York Oxford
Oxford University Press
1997
Oxford University Press
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires
Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong
Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne
Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Ine.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Earley, P. Christopher.
Face, harmony, and social structure : an analysis of organizational behavior
across cultures / P. Christopher Earley.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-19-511007-2
I. Organizational behavior—-Cross-cultural studies. 2. Self-
perception—Cross-cultural studies. I. Title.
I1D58.7.E27 1997
302.3'5—dc2I 97-6541
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 21
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
To Elaine and "the guys,"
who are firm believers in a life of continuous improvement,
and to my parents,
who have stayed with me regardless of who I am not
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
As people interact with one another throughout their lives, a common thread
is witnessed regardless of their culture, social context, organizational setting, partici-
pants involved, et cetera. This thread, face, reflects the struggle that people engage in
for the purpose of self-definition and understanding. That is, a universal search for
answering that age-old question of purpose and existence continues to haunt people's
paths in life. At least one component, a central and critical one, of this endless search
is a positioning of self relative to others in a social setting.
Face is at the heart of social behavior, and it provides a consistent linking mecha-
nism to understand organizational behavior across cultures. In this book, I present a
new conceptualization of face based on the existing literature pioneered by David
Yau-Fai Ho, Hsien C. Hu, Erving Goffman, and Stella Ting-Toomey, among others.
The approach I take diverges from the existing thinking on this construct in a number
of ways that I describe in this book. For instance, I do not view face purely as a
social construction or an exclusive product of social discourse. In placing a heavy
emphasis on face as a purely social phenomenon, other researchers have confused
the type of face with its source. In a critical way, face is an extension of self in a
real or imagined social context.
The impetus for my approach to face and self is based on a number of influences.
First, in my earlier work with Miriam Erez, we sought to define fundamental motives
of the self that guide people's actions. In some regards, our model placed a great deal
of emphasis on the self to the general neglect of the self-in-context. That is to say,
people were examined as self-guided entities stripped of the general social setting in
which they functioned. This is an exaggeration inasmuch as we attempted to link the
self-concept (based on three base motives) to societal context defined by two primary
cultural dimensions: power distance and individualism-collectivism.
Our purpose, however, was without question to examine cross-cultural, organiza-
tional behavior from an individual's personal viewpoint. To this end, we provided a
starting point for the work contained within this volume. My purpose in this book
viii Preface
has been to examine cross-cultural, organizational behavior in situ based on group,
organizational, institutional, and societal contexts as well as self-perspectives. In my
work with Erez, we provided a midrange model of behavior that might be used to
guide very specific empirical research on the topic. In the present book, I am diverg-
ing from this approach in several ways. First, the model described in this book is a
cross-level model along the lines described by people such as Robert J. House, De-
nise M. Rousseau, and Henry Tosi. Their approach and thinking were influential in
shaping my desire to capture a cross-range phenomenon. Second, I attempt to provide
a single, coherent force—face—as an engine driving the entire system. Of course,
the downside to this approach is the inevitable oversimplification of the various
forces operating in this system. However, my belief continues to be that only through
such simplifications can conceptual work be linked to empirical observation, be it to
support or to refute. Third, behavior is motivated socially in most instances (particu-
larly behavior in an organizational setting), and this suggests the appropriateness of
using a concept such as face as an engine for a general model.
I have chosen this path because much of the existing literature in the organizations
area has failed to integrate the "micro" and the "macro" with cultural context. For
example, much of the literature that addresses macro-oriented topics has been limited
to comparative organization structure, political climates, et cetera. From a micro-
oriented perspective, the literature abounds with a classification style of management
practices across societies (applying typologies of values such as Geert Hofstede's
work in formulating post hoc explanations of comparative differences in management
practice effectiveness). There are, of course, some important exceptions to these limi-
tations, such as some of the recent work by S. Ghoshal and C. Bartlett in describing
behavior implications of strategic choices, Mark Peterson and Peter Smith's work on
leadership across cultures, Christopher Brewster's comparative analysis of Human
Resource Management practices used throughout the globe, Jeanne M. Brett and her
colleagues and students' work, and my own work with Miriam Ercz.
There is an even more pressing force underlying my writing of this book. Over the
last decade, I have seen many researchers (including myself) struggle to integrate
cultural context with organizational behavior in a meaningful fashion. The literature
is plagued by reports using cultural values and dimensions in a post hoc, quasi-
explanatory fashion as a way of dealing with empirical observations of differences in
managerial behavior. Even the concept of culture continues to be a source of contro-
versy. As I describe in Chapters 2 and 8, the debate concerning the construct of
"culture" rages on. My own view is aligned with researchers, including Michael Bond
and Mark Siegel, who suggest that debating the construct of culture is a scholarly
exercise useful only for filling journal pages. Rather than sit on the sidelines and
argue for one view or another, I provide a specific framework that has the strength
(weakness) of empirical refutability. Simply stated, I argue that face (its essence as
well as regulation) can be used to integrate various social and organizational mecha-
nisms in predicting people's behavior.
Researchers in organizations have largely ignored many of the lessons of the past.
We seem to misunderstand one another as we continue to pursue specific interests to
the detriment of others' interests. We spend endless hours of debate arguing what the
concept of culture is and is not, we accuse one another of underestimating the rich-
ness and complexity of social context, and we mock attempts by some to assess and
test facets of society and human action.
Preface ix
Perhaps the strongest lesson we have learned is that to have a full understanding
and appreciation of how and why people behave, and of the impact of such behavior
on organizational functioning, we must have conceptual models that attempt to inte-
grate lessons learned from various disciplines and not just the author's particular one.
Research has provided ample evidence that various work methods are effective in
various, but not all, cultures, but we only can speculate why such differentiation
occurs. It has been dishonest intellectually to rely on panacea explanations such as
"we are just different" or "culture is too complex to understand it" as ways of dealing
with these empirical observations. My approach using face lends itself to the rigor of
controlled and systematic experimentation to tie specific, psychological manifesta-
tions of culture to work and social behavior. It is my belief that such an approach
will clarify the understanding of how social context shapes individuals' reactions to
management practices.
Many individuals contributed to the creation of this book. This theory is the accu-
mulation of my research and experiences that have been shaped by a number of
key individuals. I have had many productive conversations, discussions, and debates
concerning face with a number of important people, including Michael Bond, Miriam
Erez, Elaine Mosakowski, Nigel Nicholson, Harry C. Triandis, and Richard Whitley,
to name just a few individuals. Despite such strong intellectual support and guidance,
I take sole responsibility for the limitations of the thinking presented in this book
and errors present.
I am grateful to the University of California, Irvine, my former dean, Dennis Aig-
ner, and my colleagues for their continued support as I worked on this book. I would
like to thank several people critical to my work on the concept of face, including my
Ph.D. students (present and former) Cristina Gibson, Kristi Lewis, Amy Randel, and
Katherine Xin. 1 also would like to thank C. J. Farrar for her invaluable assistance in
many aspects of the preparation of this manuscript. Furthermore, my conceptualiza-
tion of face and culture was greatly enhanced by comments that I received during
presentations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, IESE in Bar-
celona, London Business School, Manchester Business School, Nanyang Technologi-
cal University of Singapore, Stanford University, and Washington University. Finally,
I would like to thank the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology for its
support during my visit in 1995.
I would like to thank the editorial staff at Oxford as well for their patience and
help in shaping my treatise. Potential shortcomings of my thoughts marred by inade-
quate prose have been overcome due to the persistence and patience of the editorial
staff. Particular thanks go to Herb Addison, who saw the promise in the topic of face
in relation to organizations.
Finally, I would like to thank my international colleagues who have stimulated my
thinking about international and intercultural issues. I continue to develop because
my friends and colleagues continue to challenge the limitations of my thinking and
conceptual development.
London, Englandd P. C. E.
January 1997