The variations of Relationship are individualism, collectivism and hierarchy.
The core of this variation is the feeling of responsibility. Individuals feel ‘respon-
sibility to and for themselves and their immediate family’ in the individual
variation. In collectivism, the main responsibility expands to a larger group such
as an extended family or colleagues. These two variations present similarities
with Hofstede’s Individualism versus Collectivism (with employees’ dependence
on or independence from the organization being the core of the dimension) and
Trompenaars’ Individualism versus Communitarianism (based on primacy given to
individual versus collective goals). The third variation is hierarchy, where people of
higher status have responsibility for those of lower status. Consequently, for
example, in business negotiations, instead of negotiations being carried out
directly between employees of the same hierarchical level, supervisors are first
mobilized to represent their subordinates and start the process. This variation of
‘hierarchy’ presents similarities with Hofstede’s dimension of Power Distance.
The Human Nature orientation has three variations: good, evil and change-
able. In some societies, there is a shared belief that humans are generally good;
bad actions are the result of constraining circumstances. Management practices
might reflect this general belief with trusting behavior expected between supe-
riors and subordinates. The belief that humans are evil is shared in other
societies in which trust among people builds on knowledge and experience.
Consequences regarding management might be seen in managerial intensive
supervision and monitoring. Finally, a third belief is that people’s basic nature
is changeable, consequently management might invest in employees’ training
in order to develop people into the job, rather than looking for a person who
already has the right profile (with the assumption that it will remain so).
The variations of the Environment orientation are mastery, harmony and
subjugation. In mastery-oriented societies, people tend to believe that people
can control and master their environment. Resulting managerial practices
might be seen in the tendency to plan and make the business environment fit
into the plans. In harmony-oriented societies, people are concerned about ‘the
balance of forces in the world around them’. In China for example, a Feng shui
(‘wind water’) expert may advise on the physical orientation of offices so that
they are in harmony with nature and favorable to business. Mastery and har-
mony variations present similarities with Trompenaars’ Inner versus Outer
Directedness. A third variation, subjugation, is the belief that humans are
neither stronger than nor independent from natural and supernatural forces
surrounding them. Business conditions might be seen as difficult to influence.
Consequently, the behavior of trying to plan and transform a business envi-
ronment is not as strong as in mastery-oriented societies.
Maznevski and her co-authors define the variations of the Timeorientation
as past, present and future. In the first orientation the past serves as an ‘impor-
tant criterion by which to make decisions’. In the present variation, decisions
rest on present or immediate needs. In future-oriented societies, decisions are
made regarding long-term future goals. Illustrations of the Time orientation
Culture in Management 159