The Knowledge Cybernetics Of Culture - The Case Of China

International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences Vol. 3, No.4, December 2006

The Knowledge Cybernetics of Culture: the Case of China Maurice Yolles1, Paul Iles2 1

Centre for the Creation of Coherent Change and Knowledge, Liverpool John Moores University, UK 2 The Business School, University of Teesside UK

Abstract The theory of knowledge cybernetics is principally concerned with the development of autonomous social collectives that survive through knowledge and knowledge processes. It provides a new way of representing the attributes of culture that can subsume other approaches like those of Hofstede and of Schwartz. An illustration of how this can be developed for Chinese culture is provided. Culture is often seen as the set of commonly held and relatively stable beliefs, attitudes and values that exist within the organization, and reflects on the way that an organization undertakes and implements its decision making, resolves its problems, and in general behaves is another common definition. Culture is embodied in symbols, rituals and heroes that are reflected in organizational communication, manners, dress codes, social rules and norms, and role models. Like macroscopic or ‘national’ culture, the subject of this paper, organizational which have ‘microscopic’ culture [4] is often seen to comprises corporate values, norms, feelings, hopes and aspirations. Since culture lies at the base of worldviews and paradigms, it is through these that knowledge is created and migrated, and emotions are migrated. The theory that we shall develop arises from knowledge cybernetics, and permits us to establish cultural characteristics in a way that is more overarching than that of Hofstede or others have so far shown to be the case. The core of knowledge cybernetics that we shall use is the Social Viable Systems model. It will be conditioned by examining the work Fan [39], who considered a large set of variables that derive from explorations of Chinese culture. It will result in a set of 6 generic classifications of culture each with 4 non-arbitrary sub-classifications. Keywords: China, Culture, Social viable systems theory, Knowledge migration

1. Introduction In terms of ‘national’ culture, culture is seen by Hofstede [1] as the “software of the mind that forms through learned patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. Hofstede wanted to classify cultural diversity in relational to organisational needs. His model classifies cultures across four (later five) dimensions of measurement based on cultural value. This derives from his view that culture is a “collective programme” of the minds of a group that differentiates them from other groups, resulting in a computing metaphor Understanding culture and cultural differentiation has therefore become an important task ever since the work of Hoftsede[2]. According to Ralston [3], two distinct theoretical stances exist concerning the relationship between ideology and the belief system, and in particular the creation of values. Convergence theory purports that the workplace drives values, while for divergence

theory macroscopic culture drives both values and ideology. A new paradigm has emerged that Mwaura et al [4] refer to as crossvergence, which purports that work ideology and macroscopic culture interact to create a new and unique value system. However, it would seem that this evolutionary paradigmatic development is ignorant of the principles embedded in the work on structural coupling by Maturana and Varela [5], and its potential implications for cultural change. Cultural mapping techniques were developed by Hofstede [2] to enable the exploration of macroscopic culture, and it has been used to explore microscopic cultures too. Hofstede [6] sees that organizational or corporate cultures have partial membership (i.e., being driven by practices that drive values.The five Hofstede classifications are: (1) Individual vs. Collective Orientation, (2) Power-Distance Orientation, (3) Uncertainty-Avoidance Orientation, (4) Dominant-Values Orientation, and (5) Short-Term vs. Long-Term Orientation, or Confucian Dynamism’.

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

There are arguments that this approach has limitations. Since Hofstede [2], his work has received sustained criticism, especially on the publication of the second edition of the original book [7][8]. For McSweeney [9][10] the concept of ‘systematically causal’ cultures is implausible, and he makes a number of critical comments on Hofstede’s conceptualisations (eg of national cultures as implicit, core, systematically causal, territorially unique, and shared, assumptions about organisational, national and occupational cultures, the creation of questionnaire responses by national culture, the situational nonspecificity of national culture) and methodology (use of questionnaires, employment of ‘stories’ as proof). Though more supportive of the overall approach and assumptions, Smith [11] also raises a number of psychometric and methodological questions, especially over the ‘ levels of analysis’ issue, the problems in relating individual behaviour to cultural context, and the validity of the dimensions (eg. high intercorrelations, correlations with GNP, anomalous relationships with other variables). Many researchers continue to rely on Hofstede [2], even in studies of China, which was not included in the 1980 study (Hong Kong and Taiwan, which were, showed very different profiles).

2. Knowledge Cybernetics and Culture Knowledge cybernetics has been developed by Yolles [12] for complex systems. Complexity has been explored, for instance, by Nicolis and Prigogine [13] and Cohen and Stewart [14]. It is also implicit to the theory of autonomous viable systems as explored by Beer [15][16] and by Schwarz [17]. Just as the system is normally seen as a metaphor, knowledge cybernetics

9

metaphorical in that it: (a) explores knowledge formation and its relationship to information; (b) provides a critical view of individual and social knowledge, and their processes of communication and associated meanings, (c) seeks to create an understanding of the relationship between people and their social communities for the improvement of social collective viability, and an appreciation of the role of knowledge in this. In a coherent autonomous human activity system knowledge occurs in structured patterns. This provides the structure that enables the system to recognise its existence, maintain itself, and change, and its manifestations constitute systemic content. While the notion of system (attributed to Bertalanffy[18] through his notion of the “general system”) is used to explain behavioural phenomena, its cybernetic exploration derives from the work of Rosenblueth, Wiener and Bigelow [19] who were interested in its teleogical properties that relate to its identity, degree of autonomy and coherence. Knowledge cybernetics uses a core model that can be explained in relatively simple terms. It adopts the common ontological distinction often made between the three types of reality that can be attributed to archetypical rational beings: believing, thinking and doing (Fig. 1). Epistemologically speaking, believing is connected to knowledge while thinking is connected to information and doing is empirically connected and is therefore data related; these connections may not be immediate and linear however. In the archetypical emotional being it may be said that processes of thinking are complexified by feeling, though this extension is beyond our interest here. While the natures of the three attributes of figure 1 are all very different, they do have a mutual relationship in the autonomous being.

Conditions

Affects Believing (Knowledge)

Thinking (Information)

Doing (Empirical data)

Is conditioned by Is affected by

Fig. 1. Ontological relationship between types of reality The basis of Social Viable Systems (SVS) has an ontology shown in fig. 2 that was developed from Yolles (1999)[20] into Yolles [12](2006). The three domains constitute distinct modes of being:

measurable energetic phenomenal behaviour, information rich images or systems of thought, and knowledge related existence that is expressed through patterns of meaning. The term existential is taken

10

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

directly from Schwarz’s usage; the term noumenal is taken from the positivist work of Kant (e.g., see Weed [21]), and though we also refer to the sphere of mind and thinking as did he, our approach is constructivist; and the term phenomenal has been adopted because of intended consistency with the principles of phenomenology as founded by Husserl [22]) (deriving from his 1882 doctoral thesis; also see Osborn [23]) and after him Heidegger [24]. The three domains of SVS are analytically distinct classifications of being, and they each have properties that are manifestations of knowledge. The phenomenal domain has social interests adapted from Habermas’s [25] in a way explained in Yolles and Guo [26]. The other domain properties arise as an extension of this, are listed in table 4, and draw on both systemic and cybernetic notions. There is a connection here to Schutz and Luckmann [27] in that the epistemological content of each of the 3 domains can be defined in terms of relevancies. The existential domain has thematic relevance that determines the constituents of an experience; the noumenal or virtual domain has interpretative relevance that creates direction through the selection of relevant aspects of a stock of knowledge to formulate ideate structures or a system of thought; and the phenomenal domain is associated with motivational relevance that causes a local conclusion through action. The Taoist notions of Jing, Chi and Shen have also to be explained. Sunshine and Wang [28] note three forms of measurable energy. For them, these three energies can be associated with matter, energy, and information. Energy facilitation is an integral part of Taoism, and three ontologically distinct forms of energy can be identified through the ancient idea of “the three treasures”. According to Liang and Wu [29], these treasures are the Jiang-Chi-Shen energies1 that theorize and explain the human physiological system and the fundamentals for all facets of life and its many variations. Jing is the essence of material-life is a coarse physical energy, Chi is an energy that we may see as psycho-physical in nature, and Shen is the spiritual life force energy. As such the Jing, Chi and Shen are inseparably linked with each another. The nature of this relationship is that Jing is manifested as Chi that is in turn manifested as Shen. Shen may also ultimately be manifested as Tao – a process of achieving ever-higher levels of

1

For a definition of these terms see for instance the The Tai Chi Chuan Lun (Discourse) at the website http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/classics_lun _commentary.html, or the the Toowoomba Buddhist Centre, T’ai Chi, http://www.fwbo.org.au/toowoomba/tai_chi_chuan.ht ml, accessed June 2005.

integration. This metaphorically represents an intimate relationship that is implied by the ontological differentiation shown in Fig. 2. The nature of autopoiesis and autogenesis is of particular interest in SVS. Here autopoiesis is constituted simply as a network of processes that enables noumenal activity to become manifested phenomenally, conditioned by autogenesis – a network of principles that create a second order form of autopoiesis that guides autopoietic processes. Autopoiesis may be thought as a process of operative management, a term coined by Schwaninger [30], and autogenesis as process of strategic management.

3.

Conditioning Knowledge Cybernetics through a Perspective of Chinese Culture

The specific interest in China by Hofstede and the arguments that surround it therefore makes it an appropriate case for a study on culture, but there are a number of limitations with existing work. In the first instance, Hofstede [2][6] appears to assume that national territory corresponds to cultural homogeneity, but China is not homogenous, with strong regional differences and minority ethnic/religious subcultures. There is also a problem with the use of some of his terms. For instance, the words ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’ appear to differ in meaning in different countries. As an instance of this take the context employee loyalty [31][32][33]. Japanese employees may be seen to be loyal to their organizations, while Chinese employees may well be more loyal to their families. However, both adopt the principle of collectivism that differs from individualism. It may be noted that, as we have seen, Hofstede also later identified a fifth dimension for Chinese culture, “Confusion Dynamism”, that constitutes a “long-term orientation’, or the capacity to adapt traditions to new situations, willingness to save, thrifty approach to scarce resources, willingness to persevere over the long term, and subordinate one’s own interests to achieve a purpose, and a concern with Virtue. However, there is an argument [9] that this dimension is inadequate. The reason is that the research from which Hofstede extracted the additional dimension was a “Chinese Values Survey” (CVS) by The Chinese Culture Connection group (CCC)[34]. An examination of this research reveals that one of Hofstede's four dimensions - Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) - as irrelevant to Chinese populations and therefore downgraded UA from being a universal dimension of national cultures (as it is in Hofstede's four dimensional model) to a non-universal dimension [34][35]. None of the CVS factors were correlated

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

with UA. McSweeney concludes that if Hofstede regards the CCC study to be valid he should not have just added Confucian Dynamism to his prior list of four dimensions. He should also have downgraded UA

in his model. If alternatively Hofstede regards the CCC study as flawed he should not have grafted on the fifth dimension.

Autopoiesis (self-production through a network of processes): operative processes, politics

Autogenesis (self-production of principles): governance, strategic management

Existential domain of Being (Jing energy)

Culture, worldviews, paradigms, understanding Unconscious Knowledge

11

Noumenal domain of Mind (Chi energy) Images, systems of thought, imagination, rationality & intention Subconscious Information

Autogenesis: feedback adjusting the guiding principles for autopoiesis

Phenomenal domain of Experience (Shen energy)

Structure, behaviour, interaction Conscious Autopoiesis: feedback adjusting network of processes

Fig. 2. Social Viable Systems (SVS) model based on Schwarzian model of Autonomous Viable Systems, where autonomy is a function of both autogenesis and autopoiesis Other approaches have employed Hofstede’s classifications, but used different methodologies. Jackson [36] in a 10 nations study of the relationships between uncertainty avoidance and collectivism with managerial ethical behaviour, he places China (on ‘estimates derived from other work’, p 1269) with Spain (and Thailand) but not Hong Kong, in a ‘moderate to high collectivism and high power distance’ group. Similarly, Chinese managers attributed high importance to group issues, such as passing blame to others and claiming credit for others’ work. Jackson [36] concludes that Hofstede’s dimensions are over- simplified, and that individualism in particular is more complex, bringing in the work of Schwartz [37] and ‘egalitarian commitment’ to explain the high ethical importance attached to group relations issues in supposedly ‘individualistic’ countries like the UK. Other studies of Chinese culture have taken other research approaches, especially in considering the impact of Confucianism on culture in China, as undisputedly the most influential thought that forms a foundation for Chinese culture and interpersonal behavior [38]. It provides both the behavioral and moral doctrine of human relationships, social structures, virtuous behaviour, and ethics. Its principles extol loyalty and duty, love and obedience, obligation and submission, seniority and trust [39]. Confucianism is seen as influencing the way employees perceive the organization as a symbolic

family, amplified by ideology emphasising group rewards. This implies a stress on organizational hierarchy, authority and order, mutual obligations and the provision of benefits in exchange for loyalty, and harmony, long- term relationship, a concern for face, respect and integrity, and the avoidance of direct criticism in interpersonal relationships. Wang et al [40], on the basis of a literature review, focus on five major aspects of Confucianism: 1) hierarchy and harmony 2) group orientation 3) guanxi networks/ relationships 4) mianzi or face 5) time orientation. They also explore the impact of these values on management practices in four areas: 1) working relationships 2) decision-making processes 3) rule by man- ren zhi- rather than by law 4) HRM.The recent emphasis on efficiency, productivity, performance-based rewards, and the decline in job security in many Chinese organizations, especially SOEs, has threatened Confucian traditions and values, leading to sub- cultural differences. Liu [41] factor analysed a survey of Chinese employees to reveal five themes: Equality, Security, Loyalty, Harmony and Bureaucracy. Younger workers expressed unhappiness with regard to harmony at the expense of poor performance, and differed in their interpretation of bureaucracy, security, stability and loyalty by seeing these in more conditional, contractual, calculative, rather than family/ (profit) put ahead of yi (justice), and ‘outdated’ values may be relational, ways. These studies show the importance of looking at the changing dynamics of Chinese culture. Cultural

12

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

arguments linking Chinese economic performance to Confucian values for example [42] - often asserting a negative association up to the 1990s, often now asserting a positive relationship- neglect however the ways culture changes – cultures interact with, and influence, each other. Confucian culture not only stresses holism, but also practical realism and pragmatism, valuing practical application [1], and China has always flourished when open to other cultures (e.g., Tang/Song Dynasties) than when culturally closed (e.g., Qing Dynasty). Ideas have been introduced from outside, indigenous elements reinterpreted, links built with foreign ideas, and cultural elements refocused (e.g. education re-directed to science and technology rather than the humanities). An about face on Confucian values may also occur with li rejected. Guanxi (networks, connections) which once may have been seen as good for business and useful for efficient informational financial channels, may now be seen as developing into ‘cosy relationships’. Their significance may be declining as price and quality become more important [43]. Drawbacks to this model include the danger of

nepotism and lack of integration of professional ‘outsiders’, limiting growth (see also Redding [44]). According to Newell [45], differences between China and the West are primarily through its community nature as opposed to what we shall refer to the utility paradigm of the West. A modified version of Newell’s model is presented in Table 1. In particular, Newell notes that there are three attributes of Chinese culture that are not found in the West, which support an orientation it has towards the community paradigm. One of these notions is guanxi, or interpersonal relations. According to Butterfield [46] the Chinese have made personal relationships into a carefully calculated science. Personal networks are of key importance for conducting business, and authority is based on interpersonal relations rather than legal rationality [47]. Guanxi is essential if approval is to be granted in order to access anything in China [48]. Guanxi produces personal obligations, for instance in response to requests for assistance by someone in the network.

Table 1. Relating the Western commodity and the more Chinese community paradigm Characteristics Nature of knowledge Knowledge acquisition

Utility Paradigm Objectively defined concepts and facts Can be captured and codified

Best practice for organizational improvement Knowledge migration

Objective rules universally applied to all organizations Transfer through formal explicit processes (e.g., notes) enhanced by exposure to exemplars Memory Identified by Western narrative

Dominant metaphor Critical success factors

4.

Towards a Unified Model of Chinese Culture?

Fan [39] has explored Chinese culture, and in particular examined the classifications created by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck [49], Hofstede [6], and the “Chinese Culture Collection” produced in 1987 that lists elements of the belief system (i.e., the interrelating attitudes, values and beliefs) associated with Chinese culture, including the influence of Confucianism. As a consequence of linking these studies, Fan [39] develops a list to 71 values that affect the belief system that run across 8 categories: national traits, interpersonal relations, family/social orientation, work attitude, business philosophy, personal traits, time orientation and relationship with nature. Our

Community Paradigm Tacit and socially constructed Developed through group based knowledge sharing Principles that organizations use to locally define their own rules Personal/local knowledge developed through group learning processes that create experience Group processes Trust and belonging

particular interest here lies in 6 generic categories that derive from Fan [39], and which creates a new frame of reference for the cultural context that can be assessed in both microscopic and macroscopic culture, so that Fan’s macroscopic (national culture) classifications are not adequate. This reduction to a generic core comes from a general systemic theory of context that is currently being developed that relates to understanding given situations in terms of a set of sub-situations that can be defined within it. Where a generic frame of reference for a situation has been created, it becomes meaningful only when an appropriate context for that situation is identified. Given a situation it is always possible to define ontologically distinct but related sub-situations. The principle we hold in creating the relationship between global and local contexts is encapsulated by a constructivist principle of migration [12]. Given a global context which can be described by a set of

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

characteristics, then these characteristics can be manifested locally through semantic changes in a way determined by the local context. Hence, migration can be thought of as a non-linear mapping that occurs between global and local contexts. A simple example of this in the area of communications might be useful. Consider a message with a particular theme issued globally by a message source (the sender). Such a

13

message may be contained in a book that can be pulled off a shelf by an interested person, or an email with the potential to be delivered to someone on the Internet who has an interest in, or connection with, that theme. When a thematic message is transmitted globally (by a source) then the acquirer (a receiving sink) understands its attendant knowledge from a local viewpoint. .

Table 2. Relationship between the global and local context characteristics of culture Generic Cultural Characteristics (relating to cultural condition)

Extreme condition:

Global Context Cultural condition

Respect

Honor

Synergy

Allegiances

Phenomenal Domain (Implied collective predisposition to Conscious/Ego) Relating to work, interaction and emancipation Pragmatism (reflective of circumstance) – Fundamentalism (conformity to a fundamental prescription independent of circumstance)

Work, interaction & emancipation through reflection or commitment to prescription

Hard work/industry, Legitimacy of ascription of roles and fixed resources like social power (e.g. power distance), Heroism Commitment (social or political grouping). Resistance to corruption, Responsibility Harmony with others, Consensus/compromise, Avoiding confrontation, Thrift (efficiency) Non-competition Solidarity Governance by leaders (as opposed to law)

Learning

Observation or rites/rituals Baring hardships Risk

Sensibility

Li/propriety, Wealth, Pragmatism (to suit a situation), Security

Recursive Domain Relevance within Existential Domain Noumenal domain Existential Domain (Implied collective (Collective Unconscious) Relating to knowledge, belief, freedom and emotion predisposition to Subconscious/ Superego) States Disposition Relating to intention, organizing, (impulses, instincts, (knowledge, emotion, and manner of thinking perceptions, imaginings, filter to processes of drives and motivations) knowledge migration) Patterning (persistent curiosity about object world, connected to Sensatism (locked to phenomena, sense and symmetry, pattern, balance, materially related, may be able to translate the dynamics of physical ideas of others materially) – Ideationalism (relating relationships) – Dramatizing to acquisition or creation of concepts or ideas) (commitment to sequences of interpersonal events and communications with dramatic or narrative structures) Local Contexts Intention, manner of thinking & Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion through image through persistent knowledge intensification or commitment to curiosity or commitment to material phenomena narrative Cultural & individual Knowledge & impulses, drives & emotions motivations Sincerity, Courtesy Tolerance, Respect for the Tradition, Sense of old cultural superiority

Loyalty to superiors Face (protecting, giving, gaining, losing) Persistence/perseverance Te (virtue, moral standard) Order, Unity with nature

Conformity/group orientation Collectivism Guanxi (personal connection/ networking) Adaptability Goal formation, Control development, Uncertainty, ambiguity, curiosity

Not guided solely by profit, Having few desires, Contentedness with position in life, People being primarily good

Trustworthiness Social justice Filial piety (paternal obligation) Moderation Open Mindedness

Kinship

Jen ai/Kindness (forgiveness, compassion) Equality

Feeling of belonging Long lasting relationships (as opposed to gains) Knowledge acquisition Stability Ambition

Personal steadiness and stability Self-cultivation, Creativity, Variety, Accomplishment, Intellectual pursuits Patience Prudence Purity/disinterest, Success, Pleasure, Excitement

Repayment of good and bad

Abasement/ humbleness Sense of shame, Sense of righteousness/ integrity

14

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

In Table 2 we show the frame of reference defined by the 6 values that define the cultural characteristics. It may be noted that the context set out here relates to national culture, but it could be directed to corporate culture also. If the local contexts are to be so related, then the mapping of each of the 6 characteristics to local contexts may need to be adjusted to relate to local corporate contexts. The global context defined in Table 2 is cultural condition that is applicable to either national or corporate culture, and the local contexts given are defined as: (1) Work, interaction & emancipation through reflection or commitment to prescription; (2) Intention, manner of thinking & image through persistent curiosity or commitment to narrative; (3) Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion through knowledge intensification or commitment to material phenomena which is itself a global context for two related local contexts, cultural and individual impulses, drives and motivations and knowledge and emotions Defined in terms of global and local contexts, we are able to illustrate the principle of migration. We have identified three types of context: the objectivated global context, the local contexts that arise from the SVS domains, and the local sub-contexts of the existential domain. The global context has been defined as a set of six generic variables that exists as a frame of reference intended to represent the characteristics of any culture. In contrast the local contexts uniquely arise from the ontologically defined domains of the SVS model. Since the global context is, by the principle of migration, always represented within a local context in terms of that locality, the meaning the variable takes on a new interpretation in each column. It is of interest that the generic cultural values that define the frame of reverence for global context have the possibility of operating in the same way as the cultural values of Schwartz [37], with each of the generic values having a positive or negative attribute depending upon the culture. Thus, for instance, phenomenal allegiance in culture may be high (say taking a value of 10 on a scale of 1-10) in Chinese culture where it relates to the strong support of governance by leaders rather than law, solidarity, and guanxi. However in the West it might be considered to be low (say for example a value of 2), and thus more directed towards governance by law not leaders, individuality, and with little reliance of guanxi. It is clear from this that phenomenal allegiance has a connection with Hoftede’s variable individuality. However, it is the virtual noumenal allegiance that is connected to collectivism, quite distinct from Hofstede. Phenomenal allegiance also has a

relationship to Schwartz’s notion of hierarchy. Other variables from both Hofstede and Schwartz have been assigned to table 2 across the local contexts. SVS is built on a broad theoretical base and is deeply connected to knowledge and cultural processes. Together with Fan’s collection of cultural values that is able to depict Chinese culture, the identification, examination, measurement and exploration of different cultures is quite feasible. One of the consequences of the theory is that all of the existing models of culture can be posted within the SVS model. It should be realised that the table does not constitute a rigidly fixed typology, but is flexible in that the cell contents can change according to the nature of the global context and local contexts defined. With reference to the above empirical studies it can be concluded that the Chinese society (or organization) is high in power distance according to Hofstede’s model, and has a hierarchical social (or organization) structure. In a society (or organization) with these characteristics, people are treated and treat others differently according to the status of the concerned parties. They give respect to positional power rather than to legitimated law. These may cause problems for the enforcement of HRM and regulations of HRM. On one hand, HRM itself may not be respected as it should be. On the other hand, it might be considered acceptable for people with high status and positional power not to obey regulations of HRM, which, in turn, undermines the effect of the HRM. It is also possible that its some regulations themselves may not be as effective as the presence of HRM in western organizations in regulating and promoting their staff’s behaviour Another key feature of the Chinese society is collectivism and group-orientation. People make clear distinctions between in-groups and out-groups. They offer help and exchange within in-groups, but are unsympathetic, harsh, and may be even aggressive toward out-groups. These characteristics may have implications for the behaviour of Chinese staff in organization, and the most likely consequence would be negative. One aspect that arises from the theory that appears quite novel is the idea that cultures can be pathological in nature, and it is from this condition that social and political problems can arise. Cultural pathologies have never been sought as a cause for fundamental difficulties in socially, and it would be interesting to use this in a research project to see how much utility can be found from the notion to enhance social improvement.

References [1] Hofstede,

G., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill: London, 1991.

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

[2] Hofstede,

G., Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980. [3] Ralston, F, Hidden Dynamics: How Emotions Affect Business Performance and How You Can Harness Their Power for Positive Results, American Management Association, New York, NY, 1995. [4] Mwaura,G., Sutton,J., Roberts, D., “Corporate and national culture - an irreconcilable dilemma for the hospitality manager?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Volume 10, Number 6, pp. 212-220, 1998. [5] Maturana, H., Varela, F.J., “Autopoiesis and Cognition”, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Boston, 1979. [6] Hofstede, G., “Management scientists are human”, Management Science, 40, 1, 4-13, 1994. [7] Hofstede, G., Culture’s Consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisatins across nations Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001. [8] Hofstede, G, “Dimensions do not exist; A reply to Brendan Sweeney”, Human Relations 55, 11, 1355-1361, 2002. [9] Mcsweeney, B., “Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph Of Faith - A Failure Of Analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, (January), pp. 89-118, 2002. http://www.It.Murdoch.Edu.Au/~Sudweeks/B329/ Readings/Mcsweeney.Doc [10] McSweeney B., “The essentials of scholarship: a reply to Geert Hofstede”, Human Relations 55, 11, 1363-1372, 2001. [11] Smith, P., “Culture’s consequences: something old and something new”, Human Relations 55, 1, 119-135, 2002. [12] Yolles, M. I., Organizations a Complex Systems: an introduction to knowledge cybernetics, Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006. [13] Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I., Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. W. H. Feeman and Co., New York, 1989. [14] Cohen, J., Stewart, I., The Collapse of Chaos: discovering simplicity in a complex world. Viking, London, 1994. [15] Beer, S., Cybernetics and Management., English University Press, London, 1959. [16] Beer, S., Diagnosing the System, Wiley, Chichester, 1985. [17] Schwarz, E., “Towards a Holistic Cybernetics: From Science through Epistemology to Being”, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 4(1)17-50, 1997.

15

[18] Bertalanffy, L. V., General Systems Theory: a new

approach to the unity of science, Human Biology, 23(Dec.)302-361, 1951. [19] Rosenblueth, A., Wierner, N., Bigelow, J., Behaviour, Purpose and Teology, Philosophy of Science, 10(1)18-24, 1943. [20] Yolles, M.I., Management Systems: a viable approach, Financial Times Pitman, London, 1999. [21] Weed, L., “Kant's Noumenon and Sunyata”, Asian Philosophy, 12(2), 77-95, July, 2002. [22] Husserl, E., Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenolgie und phanomenologischen Philosophie, vol.1, in Husserliana, vol. 3,1950. Also see Husserl, 1950-, XIX. 1911: Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft, Logos, vol. 1. English translation by Lauer, Q., 1965, Husserl, Harper and Row, New York [23] Osborn, A., Edmund Husserl and his Logical Investigations, International Press, New York, 1934. [24] Heidegger , M., Sein und Zeit, and also published as Heidegger, M., Stanbaugh, J., Sight and Time, 1996, State University of New York Press, 1927. [25] Habermas J, Knowledge and human interests Beacon Press Boston, 1971. [26] Yolles, M.I., Guo, K., Paradigmatic Metamorphosis and Organisational Development, Sys. Res., 20, 177-199, 2003. [27] Schutz, A., Luckmann, T., The Structures of the Lifeworld. Heinamann, London, 1974. [28] Sunshine B, Wang, Y.H. “Qi, Rui Dan and Self-excitation”, Journal of World Science 1, 197—212, 2003. Article No. 20030107, http://www.nobelac.com/science/jws/jws200301/ Web/paperforJWS/new333qipaperjws.pdf, accessed June 2005. [29] Liang, SY., WU, W.C, T h e R o o t s o f I l l n e s s P a r t 1 - J i n g , Q i , a n d S h e n , Syl Wushi Newsletter, Vol.1, No. 4, 2001. http://www.shouyuliang.com/newsletter/v1n4/v1n 4a1.shtml, accessed June 2005. [30] Schwaninger, M., “Intelligent Organisations: An Integrative Framework”, Sys. Res. 18, pp.137-158, 2001. [31] Mead R., International Management: cross-cultural dimensions, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. [32] Yeh R S., “On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, Volume 6, (1) 149-60, 1989. [33] Li, J., Lam, K., Fu, P.P., “Family-oriented collectivism and its effects on firm performance: a comparison between overseas Chinese and Foreign Firms in China”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Volume Eight, Number Four, 364-379, 2000.

16

Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

[34] Bond, M. H., “Finding universal dimensions of

individual variation in multicultural studies of values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55.6, 1009-1015, 1988. [35] Lowe, S., Oswick, C., Culture: The Invisible Filters, Ch. 6, 90-116 in Gatley, S. Lessem, R. & Altman, Y. (Eds.) Corporate management: A transcultural odyssey, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996, 1996. [36] Jackson, T., “Cultural values and management ethics: a 10 Nation study”, Human Relations 54(10) 1267-1302 [37] Schwarz, E., 1994 (September), “A Trandisciplinary Model for the Emergence, Self-organisation and Evolution of Viable Systems”, Presented at the International Information, Systems Architecture and Technology, Technical University of Wroclaw, Szklaska Poreba, Polland [38] Pye, L., Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style, Quorum Books, New York, NY, 1992. [39] Fan, Y., “A Classification of Chinese Culture”, Cross Cultural Management, 7, 2, 3-10, 2002. [40] Wang J, Wang GG, Ruona WEA and Rojewski JW, “Confucian values and the implications for International HRD”, Human Resource Development International 8,3,311-326, 2005. [41] Liu S., “Cultures within culture: unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-

owned enterprises”, Human Relations, 56,4,387-41, 2003. [42] Hutchings K and Murray, “Australian expatriates’ experiences in working behind the Bamboo Curtain: an examination of guanxi in post-Communist China”, Asian Business Management 1, 1-21, 2002. [43] Speece, M., “Asian Management Style: an introduction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume Sixteen, Number Two, 86-96, 2001. [44] Redding, G., “The changing business scene in Pacific Asia”, in McDonald, F. and Thorpe, R., (eds), Organisational Strategy and Technological Adaptation to Global Change. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business, 22-36, 1998. [45] Newell, S., “The Transfer of Management Knowledge to China: building learning communities rather than translating western textbooks?” Education and Training, 41, 6/7, pp.286-293, 1999. [46] Butterfield, F., China: Alive in the Bitter Sea, Times Books, New York, NY, 1982. [47] Boisot, M., Child, J., “From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: explaining China's emerging economic order”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 600-28, 1988. [48] Shaw, S., Meier, J., “Second-generation' MNCs in China”, China Business Review, 10-15, 1994. [49] Kluckhohn, F., Strodbeck, F., Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Ill., Row Peterson, 1961.