IntroductionIn the contemporary times of globalization, organizational culture cannot possibly exclude from national culture because of the simple existence of the fact that they are interrelated to each other. Adding to this are some of factors in the globalization of most companies like the persistent improvement in international traveling, speedy and widespread international ‘communication’, brisk expansion and transmission of latest technological elements and ‘e-commerce’, ‘free trade’, ‘education’ and ‘knowledge sharing’, great quantity of citizens migrating from one country to another, demand on lowering costs, exploration of ‘new markets’, and ‘homogenization of culture’ (Author, date).
In this sense, it is of great importance to consider the integration of the latter in creating a much better international organization particularly in relating the activities within the a particular organization and even the interactions outside the organization. However, in an event of extreme differences of national culture to an international organization, would it still be plausible to develop a strong organizational culture? With proper consideration to its implications, could divergences of national culture to organizational culture be helpful or obstructive in various functions and activities of an international organization in developing a much stronger organizational culture?
Nonetheless, in order to answers these questions and the possible repercussions of their linkages and divergences, it is necessary to understand first the very nature of culture per se to further the appreciation of both national and organizational cultures. CultureIn the very essence of culture, both Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede suggest, in their book entitled ‘Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind’ (2005), that culture is the combined mental state of people being programmed and which it ultimately differentiates individuals belonging in a group apart from other grouping of persons.
They also further relate culture as ‘collective phenomena’ because at the slightest common sense, people reside within the same societal setting where certain culture is being expressed as well as ‘learned’ (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Although, another notion of culture is either subjective or implicit, in general sense, however, culture can be described as an outline of mental judgments, emotional responses and performances which is being learned and adapted all through an individual’s existence. In this sense, culture is viewed in a much more multifaceted approach resulting to complexity in characterizing it.
Furthermore, culture involves some fundamentals which are also implicit and explicit in nature. Oftentimes, these fundamentals are explicated through provisions like actions, principles, customs and other essential suppositions. Some contemporary researches recommend the great significance of principles in relating the categories of culture. Principles and performance are obtained through socialization in an individual’s early childhood and carried on upon schooling and working. This can be steady and constant, however, it can still be subjected to alteration from time to time and these alterations can be replicated in culture.
Performances expand by means of certain doings within the society which are furthered the possibility of changes in principles. National CultureAmong various level of culture (e. g.‘regional/ethnic/religious/linguistic’, ‘gender’, ‘generation’, ‘social class level’, ‘social class’), ‘national’ and ‘organizational’ level are seemed to be interrelated particularly in narrating the existing interactions of people within the corporate settings. The perception of national culture brings numerous as well as all-encompassing explanations which varies every now and then. Its depiction is concerned absolutely to the facts that are either recognizable or recordable.