Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians ...

Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’ behaviour: a preliminary attempt to develop a taxonomy for three work contexts Abinash Panda* Talent Management and Leadership Development, Suzlon Energy Limited, Suzlon One Earth, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028, Maharashtra, India Fax: +91 20 40122100 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Rajen K. Gupta Human Behaviour and Organizational Development, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Indians are perceived to be highly contradictory and inconsistent in their manifested behavioural patterns. Findings of various research studies have indicated that at the core of perceived ‘contradictions’ in the manifested behavioural patterns of the Indians lies in the fact that Indian behaviour is determined more by the situation or the context rather than the personality. Sinha and Kanungo (1997) mentioned that ‘context sensitivity among Indians manifests itself in relation to three components of the environment, which are desh (place), kal (time) and patra (person). Sinha et al. (2002) have urged scholars to attempt a more systematic taxonomy of situations to develop generalised cultural modes of behaviour. This paper is at best a baby step in that direction. In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct the context sensitive behaviour of Indians using an ‘interactional’ framework and subsequently presented a behavioural taxonomy, which would help understand how Indians with different worldviews would behave in different work contexts. We have identified three ideal types of Indians, who are the products of their early socialisations. The three work contexts, we have identified in this paper are three different kinds of business organisations namely family owned, government and Western multinational organisations. Keywords: context-sensitive behaviour; Indian way of thinking; cultural characteristics of Indians; multi-minded Indians; familial Hindu worldview; Anglo-Saxon worldview. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Panda, A. and Gupta, R.K. (xxxx) ‘Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’ behaviour: a preliminary attempt to develop a taxonomy for three work contexts’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. x, No. x, pp.xx–xx.

Copyright © 20xx Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

1

2

A. Panda and R.K. Gupta Biographical notes: Abinash Panda is the General Manager and Head of Talent Management and Leadership Development working with Suzlon Energy Limited, Pune, India. He is a Fellow of Management from Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon and an alumnus of International University of Japan (IUJ) where he is specialised in Comparative Business and Management. Prior to this current assignment, he held the position of PostDoctoral Research Fellow with Tata Management Training Centre (TMTC), Pune. He has published around 27 research papers in various international and national journals such as Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Asian Case Research Journal, Int. J. Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations Global Business Review, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vikalpa, Management Review, Psychology and Developing Societies, etc. He has also presented several papers in various national and international conferences including Academy of Management (2007) and Asia Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies (APROS 12). Rajen K. Gupta is a Professor in the area of Human Behaviour and Organisational Development and area at the Management Development Institute, Gurgaon. He is on the international editorial boards of journals titled Int. J. Cross Cultural Management and Journal of Research Practice. He has published around 60 papers in various national and international journals such as Asian Case Research Journal, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Global Business Review, Economic and Political Weekly, Vikalpa, Management Review, etc. He has authored two books titled Implementing Human Resource Development (Rawat, Jaipur) and Towards the Optimal Organisation: Integrating Culture and Management (Excel Books, Delhi) and co-edited Designing and Developing Organisations for Tomorrow (Response). He has co-authored a text book titled Organizational Behaviour. “The most difficult thing is that the Indians will tell you one thing, think another, and do third thing, which is not what a Dane would do.” – A Danish Manager (Hughes, 2002).

1

The background

“We live in a global environment.” (Tsui et al., 2007). Organisations have no choice but to operate in a multicultural and multinational context, which tends to be complex and a bit fuzzy, if the managerial and leadership challenges inherent in the environment are not understood. In recent past, developing countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC economic bloc) are being targeted by multinationals from developed countries. An increasing number of organisations from the developed world have been exporting work to developing countries. Metaphors of a ‘flat world’ (Friedman, 2005) or a ‘global village’ (Ger, 1999) are being used by scholars to describe the contemporary business world. Though physical distance or time difference ceases to be barriers for foreign investment, ‘cultural distance’ due to the heterogeneity in the way employees from different nations/societies behave, could possibly pose a serious challenge to multinational organisations (MNOs) to become optimally effective. Hence, corporate leaders see the value in understanding and appreciating employees’ behaviour in a crosscultural and global context. It makes a business sense, for corporate leaders to understand

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’ behaviour

3

and appreciate cultural differences between societies and develop strategies to deal with the dysfunctional manifestations and leverage the productive and functional aspects of such differences.

2

Emergence of India as a major economic power

The first quarter of 2010 saw Indian companies involved in a total of 134 mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals. The largest deal during the period was executed by Bharti Airtel Ltd which acquired Zain Africa, the African arm of Kuwaiti telecom group Zain, for $10.7 billion. Out of the total 134 transactions, transaction sizes were known for 72 deals and the median value stood at $25 million and this was very higher than the median value of $10 million seen during Q1, 2009.1 Outbound M&A investments in India quadrupled in the first half of 2010. According to Thomson Reuters M&A report, about $40 billion was spent in M&A by Indian firms in the first six months of 2010, by far the best performing half ever since 2007. On the overall, about a sixth of the total business deals, at about $242.1 billion, undertaken in Asia, were done by Indian companies, marking a sixth of the 5,078 deals. On the other hand, inbound M&As into India saw the purchase of Indian companies with Abbot investing a whopping $3.72 billion for the takeover of Piramal Healthcare’s formulations business. On sector basis, the Indian telecoms sector led in the deals with a cumulative $13.8 billion worth of investments, both inbound and outbound.2 With the increasing trend of globalisation, the impact of globalisation has led to a fast changing environment the boundaries for business diminishing day by day so is the movement of people between different countries and cultures. The requirement of MNOs like expansion plans in international market has continually increased the need to understand the cultural dimensions of different countries to achieve better results. Along with the rapid development of technology, increasing social mobility, globalisation of economy and the emergence of cultural diversity, intercultural human contact at both individual and organisational levels is increasing (Brislin and Yoshida, 1994; Chen, 2007). On the one hand, the wide-ranged expansion of human contacts calls for people’s sensitivity to cultural diversity as well as understanding the behaviour of the people socialised in different cultures.

2.1 India: a difficult country to relocate to The economic activities suggest an increased presence of international managers in India, resulting in greater interaction between Indian and non-Indian ‘expatriate’ (particularly Western) managers/executives. Cross-cultural researchers have long emphasised the importance of gaining an understanding of a host country’s national culture for managerial success in overseas business operations. Multinational corporations (MNCs) recruit manpower from the host country, who are socialised to their native culture, and thereby, develop work-related values, beliefs, behaviours and practices unique and specific to the country (Adler and Jelinek, 1986; Hofstede, 1993; Laurent, 1983). Such work-related values, attitudes and practices prevalent in the ‘country of operation’ or

4

A. Panda and R.K. Gupta

‘host’ country might be different from the ‘country of origin’ of the MNCs. Such differences tend to create problems of adjustment for the expatriates in the ‘host’ country, which tend to contribute to the sub-optimal performance of the organisation in delivering business results. The understanding of organisational behaviour in different cultural contexts has been a formidable challenge for academics and practitioners. Understanding the behaviour of Indians has always been a challenge for both expatriates and Indians. A recent survey released by Brookfield Global Relocation Services Company3 points out that India is the second most difficult country to relocate after China. Among all the respondents of the survey, China was cited by 16% of respondents, followed by India (14%) and Russia (7%). China and India always have been among the top seven destinations presenting the greatest assignment challenges. With one exception (when it was ranked in second place), China has always been cited as the most challenging destination for expatriates. In spite of being considered the second most difficult country to relocate, India is one of the most attractive countries for non-Indians. “Indian companies are becoming global...and very attractive (to work for),” said Ulrich Dade, chairman of Amrop, a leading global executive search firm.4 According to the research study by the firm, based on a survey of chief executives and expatriates, the demand for foreign talent has accelerated because of the rise of so-called sunrise industries such as organised retail and, M&A besides the global expansion plans of Indian companies seeking to sharpen their competitive edge through foreign expertise and leadership culture. For expatriates, the attractions of working for Indian employers include the ‘India experience’, a larger playing field and a challenging business agenda. Mahindra Navistar Ltd, a joint venture between Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd and Navistar Inc. of the US to make commercial vehicles, has two expatriates in leadership roles. Vodafone Essar Ltd is headed by Dutchman Marten Pieters. Bharti Airtel Ltd’s director of customer service delivery is Canadian Carol Borghesi, Airtel’s enterprise services division is headed by an American, David Nishball, who oversees all businessto-business activities, including wholesale carrier and corporate markets – both within India and globally. Prof Liam Maxwell of Eton College mentioned in his interview to the Time magazine “I tell the boys that 30 per cent of them are going to work for Chinese and Indian companies.”5

2.2 Challenges of working in India and with Indians Till now, there has been limited interest amongst the academic scholars to explore and articulate how the expatriates adjust to the socio-cultural realities of India. Arora (2005) refers to the findings of various studies carried out by scholars such as Sperling (1969) and Gabeler (1996), who have explored how German expatriates adjusted and adapted in Indian work context. He also mentions that Kim (2003), in her study on expatriates, has focused on the Koreans. Dowling (1999) discovered that most Westerners perceive India to be ‘culturally distant’. Boston Consultancy Group admitted that India is essentially a multicultural society and most of the MNCs do not understand the diversity and multiplural nature of society and the different stakeholders in this country.


5

The findings of a limited number of research studies (Arora, 2005) have indicated that •

Indians tend to view expatriates as highly professional with high- and wellarticulated aspirations, tend to use ‘delegation’ as a leadership tool, friendly, willing to understand India.

•

Expatriates are also perceived to be a bit rigid and not willing to adapt, tend to remain aloof, look down upon Indians with limited trust for the Indians.

•

Expatriates view Indian employees as hard working, loyal to the company and highly motivated to do new things. They are also perceived as intelligent, well-educated, willing to develop others, friendly, positive and open towards outsiders.

•

They are also perceived to be ‘non-committal to result’, ‘unreliable’, ‘poor team players’ and ‘job hoppers’.

Working in India and with Indians has its own challenges. It is never easy. Kumar (2004) mentioned that expatriates generally find it tough and wooly to negotiate with the Indian negotiation team. Indians are perceived to behave in a highly inconsistent manner. Indians rarely present a unified face to the negotiators across the table. Hence, the foreigners find it difficult to devise and articulate a negotiating strategy for any negotiation with Indians. Further, ‘it makes it less worthwhile for the other negotiator to continue to negotiate in this uncertain environment because it is unclear to him or her whether the negotiation will bear fruit at all’ (Kumar, 2004, p.51) (Italics added). When Enron was only a pipeline company, it lost a major contract in India because local authorities felt that it was pushing negotiations too fast. In fact, the loss of the contract underlines the important role that cultural differences play in international negotiation. International business deals not only cross borders, but also cross cultures. Culture profoundly influences how people think, communicate and behave. It also affects the kinds of transactions they make and the way they negotiate them. Differences in culture between business executives can possibly create barriers that impede or completely stymie the negotiating process. Why is it so tough to understand an Indian? The comment made by Prof H. Azuma during one of his interactions with Dr J.B.P. Sinha probably captures the challenge. His comment was, ‘You Indians always have at least three theories whatever I say’ (Sinha, 2005a). As the Western expatriate manager, Silvio Napoli, once put it, “To succeed in India you have to be one-half monk and one-half warrior. So far, I have learnt to develop my monk part.” (cited by Kumar, 2005, p.6). Indians have been experienced differently by different groups of people, which have been articulated by Sinha (2005b). He presents the evolving phases in the understanding of Indian mindset historically in the ever evolving cultural and social contexts. The colonial perspective was based on the assumption that Indians were ‘half devil half child’ (Kipling, 1920) and hence were considered to be authoritarian (Lewis, 1962), narcissistic with weak super ego (Spratt, 1966) having an inner sense of instability and insecurity to the extent that “nothing and nobody can be relied upon, not even one’s own self” (Carstairs, 1971, p.54). Consequently, they have poor emotional involvement, callousness towards others especially lesser men, mock hospitality, supremely self-centred attitude, utter collapse of self-control in the face of strong emotions (Carstairs, 1971, p.46), absence of commitment to keep promises that they freely make, lack of sustained efforts for realising collective objectives, low masculine qualities, high dependence, high distrust

6


of authority and inability to handle emotions that are either suppressed or burst into uncontrolled temper tantrum, and above all contradictory behaviours reflecting ‘tremendous gap between ideals and performance’ (Narain, 1957). Truth is extolled, but all kinds of falsehood are practiced; honesty is valued, but dishonesty is rampant; kindness is virtue, but Indians laugh at others’ physical deformity or discomfiture…Indians are spiritual but their greed for material things is insatiable (Narain, 1957, p.130).

Nakamura (1964) reported that Indians do not separate the actual from the ideal and engage in fantasising, i.e. “….free, boundless, and extravagant, and often goes to extreme” (p.142). Even the findings of many cross-national comparative studies have not helped. The research findings have been at times contradictory in nature. Contradictions in research findings led Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.94) to acknowledge that ‘studies of Indian culture and behaviour often yield inconsistent and contradictory findings’ (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.94). In comparative perspective, Hsu (1963) posited that while Chinese are situation centred, Americans individual centred, Indians are supernatural centred. Nakane (1964) compared Indians with Japanese symbolically in terms of ‘logic and smile’. She observed The Indian, who loves talking in logic, takes up an opposing stand without hesitation and tries to impose oneself upon the other, regardless of the situation, the statuses of the two parties…Most Japanese become irritated when they talk with Indians, because they [Japanese] are not understood by them [Indians] and are not used to following Indian logic. In most cases, they [Japanese] are defeated ….and end up frustrated, while Indians remain perfectly unruffled (p.435).

The behavioural patterns of Indians are perceived to be situational and context sensitive, which seems to be at the core of the variability in behavioural patterns.

2.3 Scope and organisation of this paper Sinha et al. (2002) suggested that Sinha and Kanungo’s (1997) conceptualisation of ‘context-sensitive behaviour’ of the Indians needed to be further investigated and researchers should ‘attempt a more systematic taxonomy of situations pertaining to different life roles (e.g. work, social, family, religion, community, leisure, etc.) and stratified for various demographic, socio-economic and psychological factors’. A review of literature indicates that not much progress has been made in that direction. In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct the context-sensitive behaviour of Indians using an ‘interactional’ framework and subsequently presented a behavioural taxonomy, which would help to understand how Indians with different worldviews would behave in different work contexts. We have identified three ideal types of Indians, who are the products of their early socialisations. The three work contexts, we have identified in this paper, are three different kinds of business organisations namely family-owned, government and foreign (mainly Western) multinational business organisations. We have not included social and other non-work contexts. This paper is organised into five sections. Section 2 attempts to summarise the findings of various cross-national comparative and India-specific studies to brief the readers on the contradictory nature of research findings on India. Section 3 deals with


7

the findings of various research studies focusing on the context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour, including the probable reasons why an Indian might possibly behave in such an unpredictable way. Section 4 has elaborated how three ideal types of Indians are the products of their early socialisations in family and educational institutions, followed by Section 5, where we have presented the taxonomy of behavioural patterns by three-way mapping of five behavioural patterns, three ideal types of Indians and three work contexts. Section 6 summarises the central thesis of our argument.

2.3.1 The ‘interactional’ framework for deconstructing Indian behaviour In the debate over what determines an individual’s behaviour – the situation or the person herself/himself – there are three strands of argument. The first strand of argument indicates that behaviour lies within the person (dispositional); the second strand, known as ‘situationalist’ perspective, counter-argues to indicate that the situation is salient in influencing behaviour (situational) (Mischel, 1968). The third strand of argument integrates both, known as ‘interactionist’ approach, to say that behaviour is the result of the interaction between person and situation (interactional). The individuals do manifest stable differences in their general behavioural trends, if behavioural observations are aggregated across situations (Epstein, 1979). Funder’s personality triad (2005) draws on all three approaches and expresses the same through the following equation:

Behaviour = person × situation or Behaviour = f (person, situation) We tend to agree with Funder’s argument that the ‘manifested’/demonstrated behaviour of a person is the result of interaction between ‘who’ is behaving and in which situation. This would be the basis for ‘deconstructing’ the context-sensitive nature of Indian behavioural pattern. It is a two step process. In the first step, we will unravel how the ‘person’ is a product of socialisation process. In the second step, we would attempt to deconstruct how a person would behave in different work contexts. We have identified three work contexts and three ideal types of Indians.

3

Findings on the cultural characteristics of Indian society

India is a unique nation with diversity and inherent contradictions. A brief overview of India’s place in various country clusters in various cross-national comparative studies reveals that the Indian cultural profile is too complex to be easily pigeonholed. Researchers have placed India in Anglo, Latin American, Far Eastern, South Asian and even as an unclassifiable culture! This makes understanding India and Indians equally challenging for expatriates and academic scholars. Findings of many cross-national comparative studies have indicated the following: 1

India is one of the most diverse nations in existence with religious and geographic diversity (Gannon, 1994, 2004).

8


2

India is a tradition bound society (Gannon, 1994, 2004; Schwartz, 1999) and conservative in nature (Schwartz, 1999).

3

India is a highly status conscious society attaching saliency to hierarchy orientation (Gannon, 1994, 2004; The GLOBE study, 2002; Trompenaars, 1993) with high power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Saliency is attached to perceived social status (Gannon, 1994, 2004), which is accorded on the basis of ‘who’ and ‘what’ the person is (Trompenaars, 1993).

4

Indian society is moderately collectivist (Hofstede, 1980) that attaches saliency to the group orientation (The GLOBE study, 2002). The society is also found to be particularistic (Trompenaars, 1993).

5

People in India tend to behave as dictated by circumstances (Trompenaars, 1993). In work domain, managerial actions and decisions are guided by what are judged to be ‘right’ vis-à-vis what is considered ‘wrong’ in ethico-moral evaluative framework. They are less pragmatic and more moralistic in their managerial behaviour and actions (England, 1975, 1978).

6

Gender inequality exists in Indian society (Hofstede, 1980; Inglehart, 2000; The GLOBE Study, 2002).

Gopalan and Rivera (1997) have used the five-dimensional Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) framework to mention that Indian society is past-oriented, accepting a subjugated relationship with nature, where salvation is the ultimate goal of human being and human nature is generally accepted to be evil and unchangeable. Indians are socialised to attach saliency to hierarchy as well as collectivistic orientations. A series of studies conducted by Sinha and his colleagues (Sinha, 1980, 1982, 1990a,b, 1993, 1997, 2005a; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997; Sinha and Sinha, 1995; Sinha and Verma, 1987; Sinha et al., 1994, 2001b, 2002, 2003) have indicated the following: 1

Indians tend to attach saliency to hierarchy and power and status

2

Indians tend to prefer personalised relationship marked with emotional affinity

3

they tend to be collectivistic and particularistic (in-group vs. out-group orientation)

4

Indians tend to attach saliency to family

5

Indians are perceived corrupt, hypocrites and are less action-oriented

6

the behaviour of the Indians is situational and context sensitive.

3.1 Contradictions in the findings of studies on behavioural pattern of the Indians Scholars have discovered three areas of contradictions with respect to the behavioural patterns of the Indians. First, although India has been characterised as a collectivist society (Hofstede, 1980) in which the family is central, Indians have also an individualistic streak which is most evident in interaction with out-group members (e.g. Derné, 2000; Kakar, 1981; Paranjape, 1988; Roland, 1988; Sinha, 1979, 2000). Paranjape (1988) has argued that spiritual pursuits have always been individualistic in nature. Research on the valence and


9

psychological proximity to family among the older and younger generations has revealed that there is a mix of both individualist and collectivist orientations in family life (Sinha, 1979). Secondly, findings of studies conducted by Roland (1988), Gannon (2004) and Panda (2004) have indicated the religious and spiritualistic orientations of the Indians. However, these findings are in stark contrast to findings of a series of studies conducted by Sinha and his colleagues. None of their studies could discover religious orientation of Indians. This led Sinha et al. (2003) to admit that, ‘though Indians are believed to be fatalist, religious and spiritualistic’, none of their studies ‘could capture those orientations despite the presence of items on the questionnaire’. Sinha and Pandey (2007), on the basis of the findings of two empirical studies that covered 47 social scientists and 176 managers, identified four mindsets namely materialistic, dependence prone, holistic and collectivistic. They also uncovered the conditions that evoked different mindsets. The findings indicated that Indians tend to demonstrate materialistic mindset in international organisations, whereas they tend to demonstrate dependence prone or collectivistic mindset in family-owned, bureaucratic and or traditional organisations, depending on whether they value easy going life or stable relationship, respectively. They tend to be holistic by integrating work excellence and people orientation in organisations that attach saliency to both performance and people. Materialistic mindset is associated with manipulative behaviour. Holistic mindset, which is associated with proactive stance, is manifested in innovative and extraordinary performance under inspiring leadership. Finally, interestingly some studies have even reported that Indian managers hold beliefs and values similar to their Western counterparts (e.g. Kumar, 1996; Sinha, 1990a; Srinivas, 1994).

3.2 Perceived inconsistency in the behavioural patterns of the Indians At the core of perceived ‘contradictions’ in the manifested behavioural patterns of the Indians, lies the fact that Indian behaviour is determined more by the situation or the context rather than by the personality. Research findings have indicated that Indians tend to behave in a complex manner by dynamically shifting from primary mode to secondary mode and vice versa with ease in different contexts/situations. Hence, Indians are perceived to be high on context sensitivity and balancing disposition. Consequent to dual socialisation, they tend to develop ‘radar like sensitivity’ to adapt their behaviour to different situations (Roland, 1988; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997). Scholars such as Marriott (1976), Kedia and Bhagat (1988), Ramanujan (1989), Sinha and Sinha (1995), and Sinha and Kanungo (1997) have conducted a series of studies to understand how people from different locations in India tend to behave differently. It has been consistently discovered that same individual tends to behave differently with different persons in same situations or behave differently towards the same person on different occasions. Also, she/he may behave contrary to her/his professed values and intentions or hold mutually exclusive values and behavioural intentions. Sinha et al. (2002, p.318) mentioned that “Indians are believed to be collectivists in some situations, mix collectivism and individualism in other situations, but rarely manifest a pattern purely individualistic with individualist intention even in the most affluent places or in the face of the most compelling personal needs and interests.”

10


Because Indians are context-oriented (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997), the changing socioeconomic scenario of the country is probably largely responsible for this shift towards individualist influence without pushing people to the extreme. In an earlier study, Sinha et al. (2001b) found that family as a place and family members as an in-group were reported to induce Indians to behave in a collectivist way to serve collectivist goals. Compelling personal needs and goals, juxtaposed on the interests of family and friends, were predicted to cause a shift towards individualist behaviour and intention, resulting in various combinations of collectivist and individualist behaviours and intentions (C&I, IC and CI). Purely individualist behaviour and intention was believed to occur rarely. For instance, Singh and Das (1977a,b) found out that Indian managers profess to value freedom, autonomy, etc. but behave in an autocratic way. Sinha et al. (2003) conducted a comparative study on perceived beliefs and behaviour of Indians across seven locations in India to find that across all locations, people’s beliefs and practices are perceived to be ‘cynical’ and ‘hypocritical’ in nature. ‘Context sensitivity’, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) mention is a ‘thinking principle or a mindset that is cognitive in nature and it determines the adaptive nature of an idea, behaviour and context’. It is a process of balancing one’s behavioural responses in such a manner that one avoids extreme responses in terms of behaviour and action by combining seemingly contradictory behaviour in a complex way that would address both their short-term and long-term goals in a most effective manner. Indians generally perceive a situation and then respond to it as one episode in an ongoing flow of interactive relationships between situations and responses (Sinha and Sinha, 1995). ‘Context sensitivity and balancing’, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) argued, ‘are inter-related, because the persons who are sensitive to their contexts are also aware of their diverse demands and, therefore, have to balance them by adapting their behaviour to cope with the environment’. Indians tend to balance their responses by avoiding extremes in action and thought or by incorporating seemingly opposite ideas in a complex way (Roland, 1988; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997). They also tend to avoid confrontation and prefer a middle path, which is a balancing strategy for resolving conflicts (Sinha, 2008, p.178). Sinha (2005a) mentions that confluence of two-traditional Indian and Western cultures created a composite Indian culture that contributed to the coexistence of inconsistent and contradictory values, beliefs and action orientation in the minds of Indians, which they can evoke selectively depending on the nature of a context and their interests and goals. Verma (2011) has identified the following four cultural characteristics of an Indian mindset 1 adaptability and ability to learn 2 context sensitivity 3 4

relationship orientation balancing disposition.

The balancing disposition leads Indians to use avoidance, accommodation and compromise as the most preferred modes of conflict resolution rather than other modes such as competing and collaborating (refer to Lather et al., 2011 for details).


4

11

Understanding context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour: findings of some select studies

Findings of a number of studies have indicated that, whereas the cultures of various countries differ on context sensitivity, many Eastern countries including India are high on this dimension (Gudykunst et al., 1985; Shweder and Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1994). Trompenaars (1993) reported that North Americans and most North Europeans behave in a rule-governed manner, whereas people from Eastern countries such as South Korea, India and China behave in a context-sensitive manner. Similarly, Hall (1976) reported that Western people apply abstract principles and generalised norms to their behaviour because they presume that their social and physical environment is stable and governed by universal laws and principles. As Berry (1994, p.78) has pointed out “…human populations are considered to be adapted (both culturally and biologically) to their ecological contexts, and individual psychological characteristics are considered to be developed as a function of these ecological …variables.” Ramanujan (1989) in his thought provoking essay Is There an Indian way of Thinking? mentions the following to capture what many Indian intellectuals agreed on when asked to describe the ‘Indian character’: “Indians do not mean what they say, and say different things at different times.” It essentially points towards Indian trait of ‘hypocrisy’. He further asserts that the observed behavioural inconsistencies are essentially to do with context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour. Different societal cultures prefer either context-sensitive or context-free rules in their thought processes. Indians tend to operate on the basis of context sensitivity rather than context freedom. Extreme views are generally discouraged in any context. Consequently, behaviour may appear inconsistent across situations. Individual members in the organisation tend to ‘behave differently with different persons in the same situation or behave differently towards the same person on different occasions’ (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.94). Kakar and Kakar (2007) also argue that what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ depends on the situation for an Indian. A behaviour/action which is right in one situation may be wrong in another situation. The same person needs to change her/his behaviour depending on the situation. This is what is called context-sensitive behaviour, which is ‘not just a feature of traditional moral law but extends to many areas of contemporary Indian life and thought’ (Kakar and Kakar, 2007, p.189). Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) also mentioned that context sensitivity amongst Indians manifests itself in relation to three components of the environment, which are desh (place), kal (time) and patra (person). A person’s values, beliefs and actions are judged on the basis of the nature of three components. Some behaviour that is judged appropriate for a given place, time and person(s) may not be appropriate for other times, places and persons.” Indians are known to be context-sensitive people as they look upon norms as accommodative rules for meeting the demands of the situation (Verma, 2011). They are known to use ‘flexibility in ethics’ as ‘rightness or wrongness appears to be determined by the context in which behaviour takes place’ (Sinha and Tripathi, 1994, p.29). Roland (1984, p.114) mentioned that correct behaviour is expected in specific contexts of variety of roles and relationships rather than any unchanging norms for all situations. By showing differential sensitivity to their context, Indian can bring forth new

12


pattern of thoughts, feelings and actions for dealing favourably with the structural aspects of the context, i.e. place, person and time (Sinha, in press, pp.25–30). He further notes that the structural dimension of the context contains varying degrees of enabling and debilitating potentials. This helps Indians survive and deal with both the conditions. In crisis, they might deviate from the code of conduct or put in extraordinary effort. However, in an enabling situation, they can excel and shine. To sum up, context-sensitive nature makes Indians keep a close watch on time, person and place, and hence, can shift their position or approach. This cultural characteristic helps them deal with any circumstance with ease. Sinha et al. (2002, pp.317–318) mentioned that “Indians are believed to combine collectivist and individualist behaviour and intentions in a complex way depending on the structure and the meaning of the situation. They are primarily collectivists while dealing with family members…. In most other situations, they tend to combine collectivist and individualist behaviour and intentions in different ways.”

They empirically studied the normative behavioural pattern of Indians in 20 situations. The five behavioural responses they had identified are: 1

collectivist behaviour with collectivist intention (CC)

2

individualist behaviour with individualist intention (II)

3

collectivist behaviour with individualist intention to behave subsequently in an individualist way (CI)

4

individualist behaviour with collectivist intention to behave subsequently in a collectivist way (IC)

5

a mix of collectivist and individualist intention and behaviour (C&I).

They found that out of 20 situations, Indians prefer CC mode in seven situations, II in one situation only, IC in one situation only, C&I in six situations and CI mode in five situations. Sinha et al. (2002, p.314) summarise their finding as follows: “Whereas seven modal responses were reported to be purely collectivist (CC), only one was purely individualist (II). Collectivist behaviour intended to realize an individualist goal (CI) was the modal response predicted in five situations whereas individualist behaviour intended to serve collectivist interest (IC) was predicted only in one situation.”

On the whole, there were seven CC (collectivist behaviour with collectivist intention), six C&I (a mix of both collectivist and individualist behaviour and intention) and five CI (collectivist behaviour with individualist intention to behave subsequently in an individualist way) modal responses. In one situation, the percentage of respondents predicting C&I was quite close to the modal response CC. IC (individualist behaviour


13

with collectivist intention to behave subsequently in a collectivist way) and II (individualist behaviour with individualist intention) were the modal responses predicted in one situation each. Affluence and infrastructural adequacy tend to induce Indians to shift towards combining individualistic and collectivist orientations, employing to a lesser extent collectivist behaviour to serve individualist interests and opting in a few situations for individualistic responses intended to serve individualistic purposes. This was borne out of the mean scores in different locations within India. …Samastipur had the highest and New Delhi and Ahmedabad had the lowest mean scores on the prediction of purely collectivist behaviour (CC), whereas the reverse was true for purely individualist behaviour (II), and somewhat similar for C&I and CI response combinations. New Delhi stood first, Ahmedabad second, and Samastipur fourth on C&I. Ahmedabad had the highest, New Delhi the second highest, and Samastipur the lowest mean scores on the prediction of CI. Tirupati and Bhubaneswar had neither the highest nor lowest mean scores on CC, CI, and II. Only on C&I did Tirupati have the lowest mean score (Sinha et al., 2002, p.317).

People who grow up in affluent and urban places may less likely to depend on others for day-to-day needs and hence more likely to cultivate individualism in their intentions and behaviour (Sinha et al., 2001a). While dealing with family members and friends, Indians tend to be more collectivist than individualist. Education had a significant effect and other background variables had intermediate effects on the choice of either purely collectivist or a mix of collectivist and individualist behaviour and intentions. People with little education and living in less developed and urbanised locations (places) tend to behave in a collectivist manner (Daab, 1991; Mishra, 1994; Triandis, 1995). Compelling and urgent personal needs and goals in conflict with the interests of family or friends lead to a mix of individualist and collectivist behaviour and intentions. In a recent study, Sinha et al. (2010) explored Indian mindset by investigating the joint effects of Indians’ discrepant mindset, context sensitivity and quality of environment on their modes of behaviour. Respondents also predicted how a person is likely to change her/his behaviour when the conditions in which she/he works change from disabling to enabling. The findings of the study indicated that the two most dominant modes of behaviour, self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goal coexisted, but were differently triggered. Context sensitivity facilitated both modes of behaviour. Adequate infrastructure, friendly and helpful people in the neighbourhood ensured only achieving high positive goal behaviour. On the contrary, duplicity in professing desirable but acting under realistic compulsions, poor quality of environment and low levels of development were conducive to self-serving calculative behaviour.

4.1 Explaining context sensitivity – Why individual’s behaviour is sensitive to a situation? Why do the Indians tend to demonstrate seemingly ‘inconsistent’ pattern of behaviour, which is believed to be context-driven? Let us mention some of the plausible reasons.

14


4.1.1 Role-bounded collectivist nature of Indian society Indian society has been a rigid role-bounded society (Garg and Parikh, 1995). Indians’ desire to be embedded in their preferred in-groups also encourages them to take their role in various collectives as sacrosanct and hence accept without questioning. Indian society has been described as ‘the society of role absolutism’ (Garg and Parikh, 1995, p.92), which means surrendering the individual and self to the expectations of the collectives. Individualistic behaviour like explicitly mentioning one’s intent which runs counter to group norms is discouraged. Ideally, one’s behaviour and action should be guided by his role as prescribed by different collectives. Traditional Indian agrarian society discouraged moving away into the peer culture, which requires voluntary definition of one’s belonging. The most significant aspects of Indian agrarian society were the rigidly defined and bounded systems of exclusion and inclusion defining an individual’s belonging. The caste system facilitated and reinforced the process. It fostered closeness, dependency, cohesiveness and role rigidity. It also nurtured parochialism with the socio-psychological community (made up of blood relations and extended kinship) and encouraged distance from socio-temporal community (made up of population of a village or a cluster of contiguously located villages). Kakar and Kakar (2007) substantiate the above thesis while they mention that there is no clear difference between self and non-self amongst the Indians, which tends to contribute to behavioural inconsistency. It has always been regarded as puzzling. As Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.188) mention: How can a reputed astronomer, working at a well known institute of fundamental sciences, also be a practicing astrologer? How can the Western educated executive of a MNC consult horoscopes and holy men for family decisions? How does Oxford educated cabinet minister postpone an important meeting because the hour is astrologically inauspicious for a meeting?

Shweder and Bourne (1984), who have compared descriptive phrases used by Oriyas from eastern Indian and mid-Westerners from the USA, have shown that the two describe persons differently. Americans characterise a person with abstract, generic word such as ‘good’, ‘nice’, while Oriyas tend to use more concrete, contextual descriptions such as ‘he helps me’, ‘brings sweet’, etc. Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.191) substantiate this finding by adding that ‘this tendency to supply context when providing a description characterises the description of Indians regardless of social class, education or level of literacy’. Roland (1988) observed that the traditional Indian society provides few social options and autonomy to Indian adolescents, which hinders the individuation process of the Indians. Compared to the US society, relatively weak individuation process in Indian society makes Indians closer and submissive to familial pressures. Indians, as claimed by Kedia and Bhagat (1988), tend to have ‘associative thinking’ rather than ‘abstract thinking’. Indians, using associative thinking frame, tend to utilise associations among events that may not have much logical basis to justify their beliefs and actions. In contrast, the Westerners, using abstract thinking frame, tend to justify beliefs and behaviours based on logical cause and effect or principle guided thinking.


15

4.1.2 Fuzzy notion of ‘universalism’ in Indian context The Indian way of thinking does not seem to have developed the concept of universality. Since the society is traditional and conservative in nature, the approach towards the entire society does not seem to be secular. Indians are yet to develop the notion of ‘data’ or ‘objective facts’. According to Kissinger,6 India is not influenced by Newtonian ideas. Zimmer, an acclaimed indologist, echoes Kissinger to mention that Indians can imagine a time in history without man. West cannot do that as it is egoistic in nature. While the west has universality, in India there are subjective positions. The understanding of reality in India is always context sensitive and not context-free. In India, even the perception of truth is not a universal concept. Carl Jung (as quoted by Sinha and Tripathi, 1994, p.125) mentions: It is true that the logical processes of India are funny and it is bewildering to see how fragments of Western science live peacefully side by side with, what we short-sightedly, would call superstition. Indians do not mind seemingly intolerable contradictions.

In the West ‘man shall not kill’ is a universal statement, but in India punishments are meted out owing to a person’s social status. Even in the Manusmriti, we find that moral codes need not be adhered to under all circumstances. In India, all additions are in fact a subtraction from any universal law. Stories get their context with reference to the frame in which they have been placed. Indian texts are historically dateless, but their contexts, uses and efficacies are explicit. Even when we look at Indian epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata, we find that there are several episodes – each story is encased in a meta-story. And within the text, one story is the context for another within it – the outer-frame story as well as the inner sub-story provides relevant contexts for the other’s existence. Aristotle’s theory of unity of time, place and action cannot be applied to these Indian narratives. All Western societies generally have context-sensitive behaviour and rules but the dominant idea is always context-free. In contrast, as Indian society is so heavily context sensitive, all Indians aspire to be free of context as a counterpoint but in a state of transcendence – this gives rise to the concept of ‘rasa’ in aesthetics, ‘moksha’ in the aims of life and ‘sanyasa’ in the end of life-stages.7

4.1.3 Unique perception about a ‘situation’ Indians’ perception of situations tends to be episodic. It means that the Indians perceive a situation as an episode in an ongoing chain of interactive events of situations and responses over a period of time (Singh and Sinha, 1992). They respond to a situation in terms of their long-term interests. Secondly, Indians tend to separate precepts from practices. Finally, though disparity between intention and behaviour are universal, the degree to which the Indians tolerate this disparity is strikingly phenomenal. Indians seem to have learnt to live with a dissonance between a particular behaviour and intention behind it (Bharati, 1985). Sinha and Tripathi (1994, p.128) quote Kapp observing “…the paradoxical coexistence in one culture system (i.e. India) of contradictory value orientation and actual behavioural pattern.” They conducted a study in which majority of respondents endorsed alternatives that were not consistent. For example, the respondents felt that they should

16


choose their career according to their own inclination and also go by the advice of parents or friends; should seek their own happiness and also care for others’ happiness at the cost of their own; should aspire to be successful and also compromise their success to be helpful to others; should be independent and also be dependent; and should solve problem on their own while looking for guidance and support from others. It seems that respondents were attempting to strike a balance between opposing ways of dealing with various day-to-day issues. Braasch (1999) provided an interesting distinction between core (values, beliefs and assumptions) and surface (styles, fads, foods, symbols, etc.) culture in India. Whereas the core part of Indian culture is characterised as particularly fixed, the surface part is quite flexible. Whether an Indian chooses to exhibit a behaviour based on core or surface, part of the culture depends on the context of the situation, which in turn may be influenced by place (desh), time (kal) and person (patra). It can be suggested that Indians have the ability to keep the fixed core of their behaviour to the private sphere and use the more flexible surface part at the workplace. This ‘flexible’ nature of behaviour at workplace tends to contribute to the inconsistencies in the managerial and work behaviour of the Indians. This was further substantiated by Sinha’s (2004) study of five multinationals operating in India. He found that Indians being context-oriented tended to suppress their cultural preferences and habits to mobilise themselves to meet the expectations of expatriate superiors.

4.1.4 Ethical relativism at the core of Indian society Dharma plays the most pivotal role in shaping the Indian ethical sensibility (Kakar and Kakar, 2007, p.186). Ethical relativism is at the core of this sensibility, which shapes the traditional Hindu worldview. This tends to shape the Indian way of thinking to a great extent. ‘Right action depends on the culture of the country (desa), the historical era in which he lives (kala), on the efforts required of him at his particular stage of life (ashrama) and lastly on the innate character (guna)’ (Kakar and Kakar, 2007, p.186). For instance, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.97) have pointed out ‘Dharma (i.e. religion)’, e.g. also means ‘that which holds’ people in face of the fluid and changing environment around them. But there are many kinds of dharma. One is spontaneous expression of biologically determined temperament (swa-dharma), which is different from the social code of conduct (jati-dharma), which may yet be different from the superstructure of a universally highly desirable set of obligations to self and others (sanatana dharma). But, then there is a fourth type: apad dharma, which is the required conduct during the emergency. Any one of the four can be resorted to for deciding on or justifying behaviours unspecific circumstances. And yet there is an order among them. The universally desirable set of do’s and do not’s certainly have a higher position than the emergency measures, which can be taken only in exceptional conditions. In Hindu religious tradition, there are six major and several minor systems of philosophical thoughts acknowledged to be valid from their own perspectives (Paranjape, 1984). They create a worldview, in which diverse thoughts are conceptualised to coexist and can be justified depending on the context or situation (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.97).


17

Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.187) also agreed with Sinha and Kanungo to mention that An individual can never know the configuration of all these factors in an absolute sense, nor even significantly influence them. Nor is there a book, or its authoritative interpreters like Church, which can help by removing doubts on how an individual must act in each conceivable situation. ‘Right’ or ‘wrong’, then, are relative; depending on its specific context, every action can be right – or wrong.

4.1.5 A case of dual socialisation and hybrid self Indian society, historically and culturally, has been internally tempered by external influences, contributing to the coexistence of two worldviews, and hence, two ways of life! India has been a target of external influences. A large part of India was under British rule during the period of colonisation. The modernisation process in India has been heavily moulded by British influence. An influx of influences coming from outside, instead of being integrated into a ‘melting pot’, were ‘engulfed’ by Indian culture (Schulberg, 1968) – retaining their uniqueness and yet forming a part of the host culture. The process has resulted in the development of an ‘encompassing system’ (Dumont, 1970), where seemingly inconsistent and contradictory beliefs and actions are accommodated, balanced, integrated and allowed to coexist (Marriott, 1976). These beliefs and actions are activated differently in the different contexts. Tripathi (1990) argues that both social and work values in India are a set of mixed values of both Western and non-Western influences. Tripathi (1988) has used the concept of variable boundary to explain Indian self. Depending on the situation and characteristics of the person, the boundaries of ‘self’ can get extended so as to reduce the saliency of in-group. Under such situations, an individual acts more on the basis of individualistic orientation. In another situation, the same individual may display a collectivistic orientation, wherein the self-boundaries may get completely submerged in the in-group boundaries. Sinha (2002) elaborated how dual socialisation impacts the work organisations in India. Indian work organisations are subjected to both traditional Indian and Western cultural influences. Because of its historicity and oral tradition, the former leads to primary while the latter to secondary modes of expressing values. The choice of either of the modes or their combinations depends on a context. Many of the seemingly contradictory and inconsistent organisational behaviour and managerial practices can be meaningfully explained by employing this cultural framework of two modes of expressing values and three components of a context. Fusilier and Durlabhji (2001) claim that Indians form an understanding of Indian culture through their upbringing, but when they get educated under Western ethos, then an element of contradiction and complexity creeps into the behavioural pattern of the Indians. A person socialised in an Indian family tends to inculcate the values and beliefs that 1

authority of the eldest member of the family over other family members is legitimate, unquestionable and unchallenged

2

the relationship amongst family members is hierarchical in nature (elder–younger)

18


3

each of the family members is duty bound to act according to the prescribed family role, which is sanctioned by the society

4

family members are encouraged to withhold individual feelings.

All relationships in the family are one-dimensional and are characteristically superiorsubordinate. There is no concept of equality in the traditional family system. The superior-subordinate dimension is so ingrained in the society of role identities that equality of selves can rarely be achieved. Such an attitude fosters the tendency to withhold feelings. The family serves as a value generating and conserving unit (Gustavsson, 1997, p.19) in Indian context, which tends to instil values like having close personalised relationship with others, not being self-centred and caring for the whole family. The family environment creates a sense of social commitment and dependence. Each of the family members is socialised to have a cordial inter-personal relationship with others by being concerned about others’ feelings. The parent–child relationship in the family system in a collectivist culture like India tends to be marked with ‘subordination’ and ‘emotional dependence’. Emotional intimacy, dependency and symbiotic reciprocity are imbibed into the members through in-family socialisation process. Ramanujan (1989) mentions that Indians are constantly gauging and testing the level of ‘intimacy’ they may have with anyone. Indians tend to expect ‘emotional connectedness’ from every relationship in most of the situations. The nature of Indian family is primarily either ‘interdependent’ or ‘emotionally dependent’ (Kagitcibasi’s categorisation of family, 1994). Even families in urban locations are not ‘independent’ in nature unlike in Western societies. In India financial or economic dependence decrease with socio-economic development but emotional dependence still remains quite strong. Scholars such as Dumont (1970), Marriott and Inden (1974) and Ramanujan (1989, 1990) describe the self in the Asian context as socio-centric, interdependent and contextdependent, ostensibly placing community and family interest at the centre of their universe rather than the individual (Erikson, 1979; Kakar, 1981). In this context, identity is seen as an outcome of adjustment within and identification with multiple social groups such as the family, caste group, clan or class (Ramanujan, 1989). On the basis of psychotherapeutic treatment of 12 English speaking, middle-upper class Indian patients from five religious communities, Roland (1988) reported that to an Indian psyche relationship is usually far more important than issues. He has further stated that the desire for emotionally close, well-defined hierarchical familial relationship is a manifestation of their traditional collectivistic familial self. The modal Hindu personality is characterised by obedience and conformity rather than personal initiative (Asthana, 1956; Carstairs, 1957). Sinha (1988) has found mildness, passivity, dependency and non-materialistic orientation amongst others to be the ‘basic Indian values’, which Narain (1957) has also found to be the part of ‘Indian psyche’. Scholars have attributed this to the hierarchical structure of Indian society (Dumont, 1970; Kakar, 1971a,b). One the whole, the in-family socialisation of Indians tends to imbibe the saliency and need for ‘intimate personalised relationship’, suppress one’s own feelings, to demonstrate expected behaviour as defined by the role. These are at the core of ‘familial Hindu worldview’. However, if a person is exposed to urban/modern lifestyles, which are


19

guided by Western ethos, she/he tends to develop a tendency to give a bit more saliency to individual interests than what she/he would have normally attached. While contrasting between the American ‘individualised self’ and Indian ‘familial self’, Roland (1987) mentions that the ego boundaries of Indian self-encompass others of the extended family, a self less separate and differentiated intraphysically than the self of most Americans. The Indian self develops to be ‘far more deeply identified with family and jati (community) than a contemporary American’. The second stage of socialisation takes place in educational institutions. If a person is exposed to an educational system based on Western ethos, she/he is encouraged to develop ‘independence’, ‘autonomy’, and be guided by personal interests. Such an exposure leads to the development of ‘autonomous’/‘independent’ self concept, which is at the core of Anglo-Saxon worldview. The exposure to Western value system and ethos contribute to the development of behavioural pattern that can be viewed as autonomous, egocentric, context-independent and reflexive (Johnson, 1985). On the other hand, if a person is exposed to an educational system based on indigenous ethos, she/he tends to give higher saliency to relationship, become collectivist in thinking and worldview. Kagitcibasi (1996a,b) proposes that such individuals, who are exposed to two kinds of worldviews at different phases of life through different socialising institutions, tend to have the elements of both relational (interdependent) and autonomous (independent) selves. The coexistence of these selves, within individuals, implies the individuals can demonstrate both individualist and collectivist tendencies depending on the situation (Kagitcibasi, 1996a,b). Many Indians tend to fall under the above-mentioned group, who are socialised into two worldviews: traditional familial ‘Hindu’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’. This makes Indian societal culture a composite culture marked by the interplay of both traditional, indigenous Hindu worldview and the Anglo-Saxon (Western) worldview. Such a ‘hybrid worldview’ allows Indians to express two seemingly opposite modes of behaviour depending on the context. The demonstration of contradictory behavioural patterns by the Indians in different situations led Marriott (1990) to view them as ‘dividuals’ rather than ‘individuals’. The person in Indian context is not an indivisible entity but as the sum of his or her shifting relationships. Marriott’s (1990) concept of ‘dividuals’ complements Dumontian view that holism characterises non-Western societies where, ‘the stress is placed on the society as a whole, a collective man’, whereas the case of individualism ‘ontologically, the society no longer exists’ (Dumont, 1970, p.8). Gupta and Panda’s (2003) study indicated the existence of individualistic as well as collectivistic tendencies amongst the educated professionals, which are the manifestations of ‘individualised familial self’ – a blend of individualist and collectivist selves. Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.99), while summarising their argument for Indians demonstrating context-sensitive behaviour, mentioned that “the traditional system of Hinduism, castes, and agricultural mode of production have interacted with the events of invasions, alien rules, and the exposure to the West to create a context sensitivity which takes into consideration the person-related (patra) and temporal (kal) aspects and the ecology (desh) of the environment while responding to a given situation.”

20


Sinha (2002) observed that Indians oscillate in a triangular psychological space where their collectivist familial and individualistic-private selves tend to balance each other or just coexist without creating any cognitive dissonance. Inconsistency and contextual nature of the behaviour of Indians, Kumar (2004) argues, to be the manifestations of the interplay of brahmanical idealism and anarchical individualism. Table 1 delineates the characteristics of dichotomous nature of Indian psyche in terms of place of socialisation, socialising institutions, internalised values, behaviour and attitudes, focus of identity, nature of sub-identity and finally displayed cultural values. Table 1

Dichotomous nature of Indian psyche: dual socialisation

Aspects

Traditional familial Hindu worldview

Industrial Anglo-Saxon worldview

Place of socialisation

Family in a traditional society (primary socialisation)

Institutions

Traditional jajmani system based on task interdependence; allocation of tasks based on the caste system reinforcing ‘hierarchical orientation’ and ‘inter-dependence’ Saliency of social role, rigid role hierarchy, familial affiliative orientation, interpersonal interdependence (public/community/ societal level) Cosmic collectivism, ‘cosmic’ hierarchy, individual pursuit for self-realisation and ‘salvation’; law of karma, spirituality (individual psychological level), religious rituals Emotive and spiritual maps (emotional affinity, interdependence and religiospiritual orientation) Traditional with the centrality of ‘family’, ‘socially prescribed roles’ with a tinge of religious and spiritualistic orientation Hierarchy orientation, collectivistic orientation with a streak of individualism, parochialism (in-group–outgroup orientation), saliency of family, role rigidity and role boundedness of Indian society, authority is unquestionable, hence, complying with the authority without expressing individual feelings is the desired cultural norm, religious orientation (ritualistic society) with a streak of ‘dormant’ or ‘inactive’ spiritualism Collectivist/group orientation, saliency to personalised relationship, ascribed hierarchy. Dependence on others, ‘chalta hai’ (‘everything goes’) attitude, tends to be emotional, subjective

Educational institutions, organisations inspired or influenced by Western industrial ethos (secondary socialisation) Professional organisations and institutions based on Anglo-Saxon ethos of equality, equity and positional authority (and hence, bureaucracy) Logical thought, rationality, aspiration (leading to individualism, achievement orientation); enlightenment, scientific rationalism

Internalised values, attitudes and behaviours

Focus of identity

Nature of sub-identity

Displayed cultural values

Displayed work values

Rational cognitive map

Westernised with the centrality of scientific rationalism and progress Egalitarianism based on social justice; individualistic orientation with the explicit expression of one’s rational thought, professionalism, hierarchy based on ‘positional and professional’ authority’

Individualist, guided by personal goals and self-interests, transactional in approach, saliency to professional/contractual relationship vis-à-vis personalised relationship, achievement-oriented, competitive and rational, objective


5

21

The multi-minded Indian

A person is the product of the socialisation process. Consequent to dual socialisation in two institutions (family and educational system), Indians tend to develop three distinct worldviews with distinct self concept and identity. This is what we call ‘multi-minded Indian’.

5.1 Three Indians: products of dual socialisation Depending on how and where one has been brought up (traditional joint family vs. urbanised nuclear family) and how and where she/he has been educated, extent and kind of exposure to urban/modern context help to develop a particular ‘worldview’. Indians have been socialised to two conflicting as well as contradictory worldviews: 1

traditional agrarian familial Hindu worldview

2

industrial Western Anglo-Saxon worldview,

which encourage two distinct life styles and modes of relationship with others. They seem to get caught between an agrarian, traditional ethos and the industrial, Western ethos and seem to become victims of ‘double bind’ (Garg and Parikh, 1995, p.14), which implies a process where contradictory messages converge on the individual from either of the two distinct sources. The traditional familial ethos is rooted in familial and relational notion, whereas Western industrial ethos is rooted in logical and rational notion. It provides a dichotomous hybrid self to the Indians with two seemingly contradictory cognitive maps coexisting: 1

familial religious affective

2

logico-rational.

Most of the Indians in the third category – hybrid Indians – tend to behave in accordance with Western logical and rational forms in formal work context though remain rooted in the emotional and relational agrarian ethos in informal context. The traditional focus of identity draws them towards the emotive map of Indian culture which emphasises familial affiliative processes and inter-personal interdependence. The industrial focus of identity impels them to seek an individualistic, achievement centred stance. The emotive map requires the individual to do his duty as prescribed by the society, considered socially desirable, and according to the demand of the older generation. The other is the cognitive map of logical thought and rationality which creates a worldview quite in tune with the modern context but out of harmony with the emotive map. This forces the individual to either conform or rebel or just walk away. The Indian identity thus often remains elusive. It can be useful to cluster Indians into three ideal types based on their socialisation in early childhood in family and later in the educational institutions. The Indians who are socialised in rural/non-urban and non-cosmopolitan and are educated in a system that is based on indigenous traditional ethos tend to develop a strong and deeply in-grained ‘relational’ worldview. They tend to value personalised relationship, highly collectivistic in orientation and highly conservative and traditional in mindset and thinking. We have labelled these Indians as ‘traditional collectivist Indian’, with a predominantly relational

22


self, with a collectivist worldview that attaches primacy to relationship. Such a self is similar to Roland’s conceptualisation of ‘familial self’. Indians in other category, who are socialised in urban/cosmopolitan/metro location and are educated in a system that is based on Western ethos and value orientation, tend to develop a strong ‘Anglo-Saxon (individualistic) worldview’. They tend to give importance to independence, autonomy and individualism. They tend to be objective, rational and may not value ‘personalised relationship’. We have labelled these Indians as ‘Westernised individualist Indian’, possessing an autonomous self that attaches primacy to individual autonomy and independence. Finally, Indians in the third category, who are exposed to two worldviews and value orientations in two stages of socialisation, tend to develop hybrid self, demonstrating both ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ behavioural patterns. We have labelled these Indians as ‘hybrid Indian’. Indians in this group possess a hybrid self, which is a blend of relational and autonomous selves with hybrid worldview (Table 2). Table 2

Three ideal types of Indians

Place of in-family (primary) socialisation Urban/metro/cosmopolitan locations Rural/non-urban locations Urban/metro/cosmopolitan locations Rural/non-urban locations

6

Nature of secondary socialisation Education system with Western ethos and value orientation Education system with Western ethos and value orientation Education system with indigenous traditional ethos Education system with indigenous traditional ethos

Nature of self Autonomous self Hybrid self

Label Westernised individualist Indian Hybrid Indian

Hybrid self

Hybrid Indian

Familial self

Traditional collectivist Indian

Three Indians in three work contexts

6.1 Elaborating the concepts of ‘person’ and ‘situation’ Sinha and Kanungo’s (1997) conceptualisation of context includes 1

the place (where the person is interacting-formal setting like organisation or in an informal setting like home; place where she/he feels secure/insecure)

2

the person (whether the person with whom one is interacting belongs to one’s ingroup and one’s position in group hierarchy, vis-à-vis with who she/he is interactingsenior, peer or junior)

3

the time (short-term vs. long-term perspective).

In this paper, we have only considered the ‘place’ for the following reasons: 1

Firstly, the space limit of an academic paper would not allow us to cover all three aspects.

2

Secondly, our attempt is to develop a generic taxonomy that would help us to understand how three ideal types of Indians (consequence of early socialisations) would ‘generally’ behave in different places. We believe that there would be a minor variation when we include person and time.


23

The work situations could be segregated into work and non-work situations. We have further limited the scope of this paper to work contexts in India, which could be three, namely 1

foreign MNO

2

government-owned organisation

3

family-owned organisation.

Scholars such as Virmani and Guptan (1991) and Virmani (2000) have identified four types of business organisations in India, namely 1

multinational

2

public sector

3

government

4

family-owned.

We have merged both ‘public sector’ and ‘government’ into one category ‘governmentowned’. Secondly, we make a distinction between Indian multinational and non-Indian multinational. Our focus in this paper is limited to foreign (non-Indian) MNOs (primarily Western MNOs). The template would be given as shown in Table 3. Table 3

The operational template Non-Indian MNO (WS1)

Government-owned organisation (WS2)

Family-owned organisation (WS3)

B1

B2

B3

Hybrid Indian (I2)

B4

B5

B6

Traditional collectivist Indian (I3)

B7

B8

B9

Westernised individualist Indian (I1)

An instance of behaviour (Bn) is the consequence of the interaction of the person (It) and the work situation (WSs). The behaviour as demonstrated by a person depends on the person’s worldview and the context. This can be formally represented in the following manner:

Bn = f ( It , WSs ) or Bn = It × WSs We will be deconstructing the context-sensitive behaviour of Indians in Section 5.2.

6.2 Five generic behavioural patterns and behavioural continuum What would be the possible range of behavioural pattern? A traditional Indian tends to exhibit collectivist behavioural pattern that would attach saliency to relationship. For a

24


traditional collectivist Indian, relationship is the key, which needs to be nurtured and sustained. This tendency gets manifested in work behaviour, which makes work behaviour highly personalised. Depending on the degree of saliency attached to relationship, it would be gross personalised work behaviour (GPWB) or subtle personalised work behaviour (SPWB). ‘GPWB’ and ‘SPWB’ tend to differ in terms of the saliency attached to ‘personalised relationship’. In the former work behaviour, the nature and intensity of inter-personal relationship (e.g. member of in-group or out-group) primarily dictates one’s work behaviour. This tendency amongst the employees can be felt and observed by even the outsiders. However, in the later case, the attempt would be to balance the demands of ‘personalised relationship’ and work. In such a scenario, personalised relationship, though considered to be salient, rarely solely influences one’s work behaviour, unlike in the former. On the other end of the continuum, Westernised individualised Indian tends to demonstrate individualist behavioural pattern that would attach saliency to personal goals. Personal goals need to be achieved even at the expense of relationship. This tendency gets manifested in work behaviour, which makes work behaviour highly impersonal. Depending on the extent of ‘impersonal’ nature of work behaviour, it would be gross impersonal work behaviour (GIWB) or subtle impersonal work behaviour (SIWB). Similar to above, ‘GIWB’ and ‘SIWB’ tend to differ in terms of the saliency attached to ‘impersonal’ or ‘non-relational’ aspects of work behaviour. In the case of the former, the compliance to the systems and processes is considered primary and sacrosanct. However, in the later case, similar to SPWB, the attempt would be to strike a balance between the demands of relationship and process. At the middle of the continuum, a large chunk of Indians who could be viewed as hybrid Indians, possessing hybrid self, tend to exhibit a mix of both collectivist and individualist behavioural patterns, exhibiting mixed work behaviour (MWB). Scholars like Sinha and Verma (1987) have found Indians to be collectivist, whereas many others have found them to be highly individualistic, especially in achievement situations (Tripathi, 1988). Thus, both kinds of orientations seem to exist amongst the largest group of Indians. Their expression depends on the nature of the situation. Sinha et al. (2001b) have found that Indians are both collectivists and individualists and that they combine the two orientations in a complex way. The same Indian can be interdependent in one domain and independent in another. The core behavioural tendencies under each of five behavioural patterns are described below: 1

Gross personalised work behaviour (GPWB) a

Relationship is salient in work behaviour.

b

Compliance to system and process is minimal.

c

Espoused systems and processes are compromised for relationship.

d

Demonstrates personal loyalty to others.

e

Work relationship is rarely a professional relationship, it is viewed as an extension of personal relationship.

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’ behaviour 2

3

4

5

25

Subtle personalised work behaviour (SPWB) a

Personalised relationship is valued.

b

Systems and processes are followed to the extent possible.

c

An attempt is made to strike a balance between relationship and system compliance.

d

At times, espoused systems and processes are compromised for relationship.

e

Work relationship is a blend of personal and professional relationships.

Gross impersonal work behaviour (GIWB) a

System and process orientation is high.

b

Relationship rarely matters to employees in this group.

c

Work relationship is viewed as professional/contractual relationship with limited person to person interaction.

d

Each person is expected to play a role.

e

Espoused systems and processes are followed in letter and spirit.

Subtle impersonal work behaviour (SIWB) a

Systems and processes are valued.

b

Systems and processes are followed to the extent what key relationships allow.

c

An attempt is made to strike a balance between system and process compliance and key/salient relationship.

d

At times, relationship is sacrificed for complying with system and process requirements.

e

Work relationship is primarily a professional relationship though with a tinge of personalised relation.

Mixed work behaviour (MWB) a

It is a mixed behavioural pattern that attempts to blend both relationship orientation and compliance with systems and processes.

b

The manifested/demonstrated behaviour is highly situation specific.

c

One may behave differently in similar situations in two different contexts. In one situation, the person may sacrifice relationship and in another similar situation, the person may comprise on the system and process requirements.

d

Tends to demonstrate high level of flexibility/adaptability, though perceived by others as ‘inconsistent’ and unpredictable.

6.2.1 Similarities with Sinha’s conceptualisation of ‘soft’ and ‘synergetic’ work cultures A closer look to the above-mentioned behavioural patterns would reveal its similarity with Sinha’s conceptualisation ‘soft’ and ‘synergetic’ work cultures (Sinha, 1990a). Both kinds of work culture would be at both poles of the bipolar behavioural continuum presented below. The soft work culture, where ‘profit and productivity yield to familial

26


ethic and in-group considerations’ (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.102), seems to foster ‘GPWB pattern’, whereas the synergistic work culture, where “the organizations have been able to set up the objective of self-reliance, developed strong work-related norms, unequivocal performance standards and a generous reward system-all supported by people-oriented management” (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.102), may foster ‘GIWB pattern’. The soft work culture is marked with behavioural pattern with the following characteristics 1

primacy of personalised relationship over organisational needs and requirements

2

desire to be embedded in one’s preferred in-group

3

demonstrating personal loyalty to organisational members who matter rather than organisational processes and systems

4

primacy of personal and social obligations compared to work obligations.

However, the synergetic work culture is characterised by following behavioural patterns: 1

saliency of work ethics

2

primacy of organisational systems and processes

3

saliency of objectivity and eliminating any scope for subjectivity.

Different Indians can make a shift from one behavioural pattern to another one in a seamless manner depending on the context/situation.

Let us now look at the dominant work culture in three work contexts in India considered in this paper, which Western MNOs, government organisations and family-owned organisations.

6.3 Distinct work cultures in three work contexts The Western MNOs have been guided by Western value system/processes and make their formal systems and processes work more effectively. The organisational processes and systems are considered sacrosanct, and are rarely compromised for subjective considerations. Professional competence is valued more than personal loyalty. The government organisations (including public sector entities) are characterised by politicisation and bureaucratisation. In such an organisation, the way things are conducted would be perceived as ‘confusing’ and ‘unpredictable’ by outsiders. It becomes a choice for the organisation members whether to be process centric or person centric depending on the situation. In contrast, the family-owned organisations tend to be run and managed in an ad-hoc manner. Loyalty seems to be given more salience than competence. Secondly, relationship is given more salience in this kind of set-up. The spirit of organisational processes and systems may be compromised or bypassed to meet the demands arising out of a need to nurture and maintain relationships.


27

6.4 Probable patterns of behaviour Many managers internalise both traditional and Western values (Sinha, 1990b), which has resulted in ‘a strange dualism in Indian management practices’ (Virmani, 1997, p.30). Both are seemingly incongruent, yet continuously interacting like ‘drops of oil on water’. Indian business system and practices, hence, tend to present a very confused picture (Virmani and Guptan, 1991) to both organisation theorists as well as practitioners. Also, many of the Western concepts and frameworks tend to succeed only partially in explaining work behaviour of Indian employees. Virmani (2005) studied over 40 organisations of various types in India. Not surprisingly, he found that There is a distinct hiatus between the professed and actual practices followed in most Indian organizations. This is due to conflict that arises from having alien Western system thrust upon local Indian practices and expectations. Professed policies and procedures are not followed within the organization. It appears that, on the face of it, the entire management is not working. Yet, organizations do move and, by and large, produce substantial results. This is because, as many have said, management in an organization is effected ‘somehow’. The dualism lies here.

Organisation is an artificial entity created to achieve a set of goals. It has its own set of processes and systems and more importantly a culture, a way of doing business. The organisational culture, through its explicit rules and unspelt norms allow certain kinds of behaviour and discourage other kinds of behaviour. Organisational members tend to adapt their behaviour according to work contexts. Individuals, though, tend to restrain their natural behaviour in organisational context, yet have the tendency to behave in a manner, which is similar to their behaviour in other societal contexts.

6.5 Context-specific behavioural patterns We have elaborated the five generic behavioural patterns in Section 5.2. In this section, we are presenting the probable behavioural patterns as exhibited by the three ideal types of Indians in three distinct work contexts. Some of these behavioural patterns are variants of generic behavioural patterns mentioned above (Table 4). Figure 1 depicts how socialisation process influences the development of worldviews, which dictates the behavioural patterns in different work contexts. Table 4

The taxonomy of Indian behaviour Government organisations

Family-owned organisations

Covert parochial/ paternalistic (subtle personalised) work behaviour

MWB

Parochial/paternalistic/ ingratiating (gross personalised) work behaviour

Hybrid Indian

MWB

MWB

MWB

Westernised individualist Indian

GIWB

Judicious/cautious (subtle) impersonal work behaviour

Judicious/cautious (subtle) impersonal work behaviour

Western MNOs Traditional collectivist Indian

28 Figure 1

A. Panda and R.K. Gupta Deconstructing the ‘person’ and the ‘work context’ to develop the taxonomy of work behaviour

Notes: a Primary socialisation takes place within a family. The nature of in-family socialisation depends on where the person lives in (urban/cosmopolitan/metro vs. nonurban/rural/traditional setting). It happens in the early part of life usually before one turns 12. b Secondary socialisation takes place in educational institutions at secondary and higher level. It includes one’s exposure to education system with Western/indigenous ethos. c As conceptualised by Sinha et al. (2002).

6.5.1 Traditional collectivist Indians in three work contexts Traditional collectivist Indians tend to have dominant familial worldview with a possible awareness of Anglo-Saxon worldview. Their natural work behaviour pattern is guided by the saliency they tend to attach to personalised relationship. For them, building and nurturing relationship is considered salient in every situation and context. The demand arising out of maintaining a relationship is considered more important than getting things done. The saliency that is attached to personalised relationship leads in ‘parochial’, ‘paternalistic’ and at times ‘ingratiating’ relationship. Such behaviour comes naturally to them. The work context of family-owned organisations seems to be the most conducive one for organisational members to express such behaviour spontaneously. In contrast, the Western MNOs may not be the right context for such behaviour, where system and process orientation remains at the core of organisational culture. How does a traditional collectivist Indian behave in three work contexts? She/he would demonstrate work behaviour marked with ‘ingratiation’, ‘parochialism’ and ‘paternalism’ in family-owned organisations. She/he would form cliques with coemployees from the same caste, community and location. Such parochial behaviour, as


29

Roland argues, is a manifestation of ‘familial community self, marked with emotional reciprocity’. Such work behaviour tends to be predominant and overt in family-owned entities. System and process orientation seems to be largely absent in such organisations. Attrition of this kind of Indians would probably be low, as they may be comfortable with a work culture, which is marked with ‘ingratiation’ and ‘parochialism’. However, such work behaviour is rarely encouraged by the Western multinational or professionally managed organisations. System and process orientation tends to be salient. Hence, traditional collectivist Indian would covertly attempt to form and maintain cliques to the extent the work culture would allow in a covert manner, in spite of the fact that such work behaviour may be construed as unprofessional and political. Traditionally, collectivist Indians might find themselves out of place in professionally managed (multinational) organisations. Or else, they may engage themselves in forming cliques with the people belonging to same caste, community and speaking the same language and survive as long as they can. However, such Indians tend to express both kinds of behaviour in government organisations, depending on the context. They would follow or bypass the systems and processes depending on the situation. The situation is determined primarily by the persons they are dealing with, whether they are part of the ‘in-group’ or ‘out-group’. While dealing with people who are the part of their ‘in-group’, they may bypass the systems and processes with ease, whereas when they are dealing with people who are not part of their in-group, they may mechanistically follow the systems and processes.

6.5.2 Westernised individualist Indians in three work contexts The Westernised individualist Indians, as mentioned earlier, is socialised to have a dominant Anglo-Saxon worldview, with a streak of familial Hindu worldview. They tend to be highly ‘impersonal’ and system and process oriented in their interactions with people and task performance, respectively. Such a predisposition tends to influence their work behaviour in different work contexts. In Western MNOs, this type of Indians tends to be more natural compared to the two other work contexts, namely family-owned and public sector organisations, where they need to be more judicious and cautious. They cannot be as impersonal as they might naturally like to be. They have to strike a balance between the demands necessary to maintain personalised relationship and demands emanating from getting work done systematically leveraging the systems and processes. For which, they tend to assess various implications of demonstrating one kind of behaviour. However, they would not be highly influenced by the need to maintain a relationship. Most often they would sacrifice relationship for systems and processes.

6.5.3 Hybrid Indians in three work contexts Hybrid Indians possess hybrid selves, with a blend of two worldviews – familial Hindu and Anglo-Saxon. Such Indians are comfortable in behaving in both ways. Both kinds of behavioural patterns come naturally to them. They can follow systems and processes with ease in one situation, whereas can bypass them in another situation. The nature of the situation is determined by the person they are dealing. They adapt themselves easily to different situations.

30


This type of Indian is the most adaptable of the three types. They could behave in both individualistic and collectivistic way depending on the situation. It is very difficult to decipher the intention and manifested behavioural pattern of this group of Indians. We present the taxonomy of the context-sensitive behavioural pattern of the Indians in Figure 2. Figure 2

The taxonomy of context-sensitive behavioural patterns of the Indians


31

The proposed taxonomy mentioned above has attempted to conjecture the link between five patterns of behaviour as demonstrated by three ideal types of Indians in three different work contexts, with different work cultures. We have identified five patterns of behaviour in nine work situations. The manifested behavioural patterns are triggered by the situation and the worldviews of the three types of the Indians. In Section 5.6, we have attempted to associate five behavioural dispositions as conceptualised by Sinha et al. (2002) with three ideal types of Indians in terms of their dominant behavioural patterns.

6.6 Mapping Sinha et al.’s (2002) five behavioural dispositions to three types of Indians Sinha et al. (2002) have identified five behavioural patterns (CC, IC, II, CI and C&I). Can we map these five behavioural patterns to the three types of Indians identified on the basis of early socialisation? It is safe to conjecture that traditional collectivist Indians would primarily be collectivist (CC and IC) in their behavioural orientation because of their ‘familial self’ and relational worldview. By the same logic, the Westernised individualist Indians might be primarily demonstrating ‘individualist’ (II and CI) behavioural pattern as they posses ‘autonomous’ and independent self with Anglo-Saxon worldview. The hybrid Indian would be exhibiting a blend of both kinds of behavioural patterns (C&I) as their early socialisation has helped developed a hybrid self. Based on the above conjectures, we hypothesise that: H1: The traditional collectivist Indian is collectivist (CC, IC) in his or her behaviour (irrespective of the intention that triggers such behaviour), whereas the Westernised individualist Indian would be behaving in an individualist (II, CI) manner (irrespective of her/his intention). The hybrid Indian would demonstrate mixed behavioural pattern (C&I). H2: The hybrid Indian would be perceived as more unpredictable compared to other two types, Westernised individualist and traditional collectivist.

6.7 Person organisation fitment and human resources implications The traditional collectivist Indians would be spontaneous in terms of their work behaviour in family-owned businesses, whereas the Westernised individualist Indians would be spontaneous in MNOs. This understanding leads us to conjecture that H3: The attrition rate of the traditional collectivist Indians in family-owned organisation would be less MNOs. H4: The attrition rate of the Westernised individualist Indians in the family-owned organisations would be higher compared to government-owned organisations as well as MNOs.

32


6.8 Will there be a shift in context-sensitive behavioural pattern with modernisation? Ramanujan argues that with modernisation of Indian society, there has been a movement from context-sensitive to context-free thinking at least in principle. For instance, today, people can listen to any raga at any time rather than strictly sticking to the time prescribed. However, new thoughts and behaviours borrowed from the West do not completely replace the traditional ideas. They get incorporated with the existing tradition. In ‘ayudha puja’, even computers and type-writers are worshipped instead of weapons. Therefore, no matter how hard we try to move to become a context-free society, the result is that we end up creating a new Indian context. As Ramanujan (1990, p.57) himself states: When Indians learn, quite expertly, modern science, business or technology, they ‘compartmentalize’ these interests…; the new ways of thought and behaviour do not replace, but live along with the older religious ways…. The modern, the context-free becomes one more context.

7

Summary and conclusion

We have attempted to deconstruct the context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour in a systematic manner based on the findings of earlier studies. We operationalised context as an interaction of person and situation. We identified three ideal types of Indians and three work contexts. There are five unique patterns of behaviour as demonstrated by these three ideal types of Indians in three work contexts. We presented the taxonomy of behavioural pattern that would help us to understand how three ideal types of Indians would behave in three work contexts. We have also proposed a set of hypotheses to be empirically tested to validate the applicability of the proposed taxonomy. This would help practitioners and expatriates understand and predict how different kinds of Indians would behave in three different work contexts namely family-owned organisations, government organisations and MNCs. It would also help human resources practitioners address fitment issues (person-role fitment), and also, design and deploy right kind of people practices that would motivate employees to excel in their roles. The taxonomy presented here, however, tentative and conjectural in nature, which needs to be further empirically validated and tested. In spite of this limitation, the taxonomy, we believe, would contribute to the understanding of Indians’ behaviour in a significant manner. We have not included non-work (social) contexts in this taxonomy due to the space constraint, which would be taken up in another paper.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Moreover, they would like to acknowledge the assistance with English language editing provided by Ms Ruby Dash.


33

References Adler, N. and Jelinek, M. (1986) ‘Is “organization culture” culture” culture bound?’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.73–90. Arora, D. (2005) Foreign Multinationals in India: Adapting to India’s Work Culture and Management Practices. Available at: http://www.f3.htw-erlin.de/Professoren/Arora/ discussion_paper/Foreign_Multinationals_in_India_Dayanand-Arora.pdf, Accessed on 25 January 2011. Asthana, H.S. (1956) ‘Some aspects of personality structuring in Indian (Hindu) social organizations’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp.155–163. Berry, J.W. (1994) ‘Ecology of individualism and collectivism’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.77–84. Bharati, A. (1985) ‘The self in Hindu thought and action’, in A. Marsella, G. DeVos and F.L.K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self. New York: Tavistock Publications, pp.185–230. Braasch, S. (1999) ‘Expatriates in India: cultural specific leadership and its potential’, Unpublished Dissertation No. 2265, Submitted to the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Brislin, R. and Yoshida, T. (1994) Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carstairs, G.M. (1957) The Twice Born. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Carstairs, G.M. (1971) The Twice Born. Bombay: Asia Publishers. Chen, G.M. (2007) ‘A review of the concept of intercultural effectiveness’, in M. Hinner (Ed.), The Influence of Culture in the World of Business. Germany: Peter Lang, pp.97–115. Daab, W.Z. (1991) ‘Changing perspectives on individualism’, Paper presented at the Helsinki Meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, July. Derné, S. (2000) ‘Culture, family structure, and “psyche” in Hindu India: the “fit” and the “inconsistencies”’, Int. J. Group Tensions, Vol. 29, Nos. 3–4, pp.323–348. Dowling, P. (1999) International Human Resource Management: Managing People in Multinational Context. Cincinnati: South Western College Publications. Dumont, L. (1970) Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. England, G.W. (1975) The Manager and His Values: An International Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. England, G.W. (1978) ‘Managers and their value systems: a five country comparative study’, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 13, Summer, pp.35–44. Epstein, S. (1979) ‘The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp.1097–1126. Erikson, E.H. (1979) Dimensions of a New Identity: The Jefferson Lectures in Humanities. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Friedman, T.L. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Funder, D.C. (2005) ‘Toward a resolution of the personality triad: persons, situations, and behaviors’, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40, pp.21–34. Fusilier, M. and Durlabhji, S. (2001) ‘Cultural values of Indian managers: an exploration through unstructured interviews’, Int. J. Value-Based Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.223–236. Gabeler, J. (1996) ‘Intercultural co-operation between Germans and Indians’, Unpublished Study for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. Gannon, M.J. (1994) Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 17 Countries. London: Sage Publications.

34


Gannon, M.J. (2004) Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 28 Nations, Clusters of Nations, and Continents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Garg, P.K. and Parikh, I.J. (1995) Crossroads of Culture: A Study in the Culture of Transience. New Delhi: Sage Publication. Ger, G. (1999) ‘Localizing in the global village: local firms competing in global markets’, California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.64–83. Gopalan, S. and Rivera, J.B. (1997) ‘Gaining a perspective on Indian value orientations: implications for expatriate managers’, Int. J. Organizational Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.156–179. Gudykunst, W.B., Stewart, L.P. and Toomey, S.T. (1985) Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gupta, R.K and Panda A. (2003) ‘Individualized familial self: the evolving self of qualified technocrats in India’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.1–29. Gustavsson, B. (1997) Transition or Transcendence? A Study of Indian Managerial Values. Research Monograph, Management Centre for Human Values, IIM Calcutta. Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1993) ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.81–94. Hsu, F.L.K. (1963) Clan, Caste and Club. New York: van Nostrand. Hughes, M.L. (2002) ‘A theoretical and empirical analysis of Chinese and Indian negotiating behaviour’, Unpublished Master Thesis, The Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark. Inglehart, R. (2000) ‘Culture and democracy’, in L.E. Harrison and S.P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books, pp.80–97. Johnson, F. (1985) ‘The Western concept of self’, in A. Marsella, G. DeVos and F. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. NY: Tavistock, pp.91–138. Kagitcibasi, C. (1994) ‘A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: toward a new formulation’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.52–65. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996a) ‘The autonomous-relational self: a new synthesis’, European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.180–186. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996b) Family and Human Development Across Cultures: A View from the Other Side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kakar, S. (1971a) ‘Authority patterns and subordinate behaviour in Indian organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp.298–307. Kakar, S. (1971b) ‘Themes of authority in social relations in India’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 84, pp.93–101. Kakar, S. (1981) The Innerworld: A Psychoanalytic Study of Childhood and Society in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kakar, S. and Kakar, K. (2007) The Indians: Portrait of a People. New Delhi: Viking/Penguin. Kedia, B.L. and Bhagat, R.S. (1988) ‘Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: implications for research in international and comparative management’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp.558–571. Kim, Y. (2003) ‘Global auto companies and their supplier relationships in India’, Eleventh GERPISA International Colloquium, 11–13 June, Ministere de la Recherche, Paris, France. Kipling, R. (1920) The White Man’s Burden (Verse 371–372). New York: Doubleday. Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.


35

Kumar, D.S. (1996) ‘Work values and organizational commitment: a study of managers in public and private sector organizations’, PhD Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad. Kumar, R. (2004) ‘Brahmanical idealism, anarchical individualism, and dynamics of Indian negotiating behaviour’, Int. J. Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.39–58. Kumar, R. (2005) ‘Negotiating with the complex, imaginative Indian’, Ivey Business Journal, Reprint No. 9B05TB04, March–April, Available at: http://www.opus-seminars.com/zarticles/ RK-Negotiating-India.pdf, Accessed on 20 March 2010. Lather, A.S., Shilpi, J. and Shukla, A. (2011) ‘Cross-cultural conflict resolution styles: an extensive literature review’, Asian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 2, Special Issue, pp.130–146. Online Open Access Publishing Platform for Management Research. Laurent, A. (1983) ‘The cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management’, International Studies of Man and Organization, Vol. 13, Nos. 1–2, pp.75–76. Lewis, O. (1962) Village Life in Northern India. New York: Vintage Publishers. Marriott, M. (1976) ‘Hindu transaction: diversity without dualism’, in B. Kapferer (Ed.), Transaction and Meaning: Direction in Anthropology of Exchange and Symbolic Behaviour. Philadelphia: Ishi, pp.209–237. Marriott, M. (1990) ‘Constructing an Indian ethnosociology’, in M. Marriott (Ed.), India through Hindu Categories. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.1–39. Marriott, M. and Inden, R. (1974) ‘Caste system’, Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.), Vol. 3, pp.982–991. Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley. Mishra, R.C. (1994) ‘Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.225–238. Nakamura, H. (1964) Ways of Thinking of Eastern People: India, China, Tibet and Japan. Honolulu: East West Center Press. Nakane, C. (1964) Japanese Society. Berkeley: University of California. Narain, D. (1957) Hindu Character. Bombay: University of Bombay Press. Panda, A. (2004) ‘In-family socialization effects on organizational culture and employees’ job related attitudes: a comparative study of Gujarat and Orissa’, Unpublished FPM Thesis, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. Paranjape, A.C. (1984) Theoretical Psychology: The Meeting of East and West. New York: Plenum. Paranjape, A.C. (1988) ‘A personality theory according to Vedanta’, in A.C. Paranjape, D.X.E. Ho and R.W. Ribber (Eds.), Asian Contributions to Psychology. New York: Praeger, pp.185–213. Ramanujan, A.K. (1989) ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.41–58. Ramanujan, A.K. (1990) ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking?’, in M. Marriott (Ed.), India through Hindu Categories. New Delhi: Sage, pp.41–58. Roland, A. (1984) ‘The self in India and America’, in V. Kavolis (Ed.), In Design of Selfhood. New Jersey: Associated University Press, pp.170–191. Roland, A. (1987) ‘The familial self, the individualized self and the transcendent self: psychoanalytic reflections on India and America’, Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp.237–250. Roland, A. (1988) In Search of Self in India and Japan: Towards a Cross-cultural Psychology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Schulberg, L. (1968) Historic India, Great Ages of Man: A History of the World Culture Series. Amsterdam: Time Life International. Schwartz, S.H. (1999) ‘A theory of cultural values and some implications for work’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, No. 11, pp.23–47.

36


Shweder, R. and Bourne, E.J. (1984) ‘Does the concept of the persona vary cross-culturally’, in R. Shweder and R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.158–199. Sinha, D. (1979) ‘The young and old: ambiguity of role models and values among Indian youth’, in S. Kakar (Ed.), Identity and Adulthood. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.56–64. Sinha, D. (1988) ‘Basic Indian values and behaviour disposition in the context of national development’, in D. Sinha and H.S.R. Kao (Eds.), Social Values and Development: Asian Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage, pp.31–55. Sinha, D. and Tripathi, R.C. (1994) ‘Individualism in a collective culture: a case of coexistence of opposites’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.123–136. Sinha, J.B.P. (1980) The Nurturant Task Leadership. New Delhi: Concept Publishing. Sinha, J.B.P. (1982) ‘Power structural, perceptual, frame and behavioural strategies in a dyadic relationship’, in R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, D. Sinha, J.B.P. Sinha (Eds.), Diversity and Unity in Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp.308–316. Sinha, J.B.P. (1988) Work Cultures in Indian Organizations. Patna: A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies. Sinha, J.B.P. (1990a) Work Culture in the Indian Context. New Delhi: Sage. Sinha, J.B.P. (1990b) ‘The salient Indian values and their socio-ecological roots’, Indian Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.478–488. Sinha, J.B.P. (1993) ‘Cultural embeddedness and developmental role of industrial organizations in India’, in M.V. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. IV. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Sinha, J.B.P. (1997) ‘Indian perspectives on leadership and power in organizations’, in H.S.R. Kao and D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian Perspectives on Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.218–235. Sinha, J.B.P. (2000) ‘Towards indigenization of psychology in India’, Psychological Studies, Vol. 45, Nos. 1–2, pp.3–13. Sinha, J.B.P. (2002) ‘A cultural frame for understanding organizational behaviour’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.155–166. Sinha, J.B.P. (2004) Multinationals in India Managing the Interfaces of Cultures. New Delhi: Sage. Sinha, J.B.P. (2005a) ‘Indians’ shifting cultural frame for managing people in organizations’, Paper presented during the Workshop on Indian Culture and Management at COSMODE Management Research Center, Hyderabad, 14–16 April. Sinha, J.B.P. (2005b) ‘Conceptualizing Indian mindset: evidence and speculations’, Paper presented during an International Conference on Understanding India at Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark, 3–5 November 2005. Sinha, J.B.P. (2008) Culture and Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: Sage. Sinha, J.B.P. (in press) ‘The shifting mindset of Indians’, in G. Misra (Ed.), Discipline of Psychology in the Series. The History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture (General Editor, D.P. Chattopadhyay). Sinha, J.B.P. and Kanungo, R.N. (1997) ‘Context sensitivity and balancing in organizational behaviour’, Int. J. Psychology, Vol. 32, pp.93–105. Sinha, J.B.P. and Pandey, A. (2007) ‘Indians’ mindsets and the conditions that evoke them’, National Academy of Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.1–13. Sinha, J.B.P. and Sinha, D. (1995) ‘Role of social values in Indian organizations’, in H.S.R. Kao, D. Sinha and S-H. Ng (Eds.), Effective Organizations and Social Values, New Delhi: Sage, pp.164–173.


37

Sinha, J.B.P. and Verma, J. (1987) ‘Structure of collectivism’, in C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and Progress in Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zetlinger, pp.123–129. Sinha, J.B.P., Bhupatkar, A.P., Anand, G., Rajen, K., Panda, A., Singh, S., Singh-Sengupta, S., Sinha, R.B.N. and Srinivas, E.S. (2003) ‘Facets of societal and organizational cultures and managers’ work related thoughts and feelings’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.1–25. Sinha, J.B.P., Daftaur, C.N., Gupta, R.K., Mishra, R.C., Jayseetha, R., Jha, S.S., Verma, J. and Vijaykumar, V.S.R. (1994) ‘Regional similarities and differences in people’s beliefs, practices and preferences’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.131–150. Sinha, J.B.P, Sinha, T.N, Verma, J. and Sinha, R.B.N. (2001a) ‘Collectivism coexisting with individualism: an Indian scenario’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.133–145. Sinha, J.B.P., Sinha, T.N., Verma, J. and Sinha, R.B.N. (2001b) ‘Collectivism coexisting with individualism: an Indian scenario’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp.133–145. Sinha, J.B.P., Singh, S., Gupta, P., Srivastava, K.B.L., Sinha, R.B.N., Srivastava, S., Ghosh, A., Siddiqui, R.N., Tripathi, N., Gupta, M., Srivastava, S., Mulla, Z., Vijayalakshmi, C. and Pandey, A. (2010) ‘An exploration of Indian mindset’, Psychological Studies, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.3–17. Sinha, J.B.P., Vohra, N., Singhal, S., Sinha, R.B.N. and Ushashree, S. (2002) ‘Normative predictions of collectivist-individualist intentions and behaviour of Indians’, Int. J. Psychology, Vol. 37, pp.309–319. Singh, P. and Das, G. (1977a) ‘Managerial style of Indian managers’, ASCI Journal of Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–11. Singh, P. and Das, G. (1977b) ‘Occupational values of Indian managers’, Decision, Vol. 4, pp.327–342. Singh, R.B.P. and Sinha, J.B.P. (1992) ‘Darker side of manager-worker relationship in a coal area in India’, in R. DeRidder and R.C. Tripathi (Eds.), Norm Violation and Intergroup Relations. London: OUP, pp.90–115. Sperling, J.B. (1969) The Human Dimension of Technical Assistance: The German Experience at Rourkela, India. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Spratt, P. (1966) Hindu Culture and Personality: A Psycho-analytic Study. Bombay: Manathalas. Srinivas, N. (1994) ‘Management education and work motivation in developing societies’, in R.N. Kanungo and M. Mendonca (Eds.), Work Motivation: Models for Developing Countries. New Delhi: Sage, pp.230–247. The GLOBE Study (Gupta, V., Surie, G., Javidan, M. and Chhokar, J.) (2002) ‘South Asian cluster: where the old meets new?’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.10–27. Triandis, H.C. (1994) Culture and Social Behaviour. NY: McGraw Hill. Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: West View Press. Tripathi, R.C. (1988) ‘Aligning development to values in India’, in D. Sinha and H.S.R. Kao (Eds.), Social Values and Development: Asian Perspective. New Delhi: Sage, pp.315–333. Tripathi, R.C. (1990) ‘Interplay of values in the functioning of organizations’, Int. J. Psychology, Vol. 25, pp.715–734. Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: The Economist Books. Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.A. and Ou, A.Y. (2007) ‘Cross national cross cultural organizational behaviour research: advances, gaps and recommendations’, Journal of Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.426–478. Verma, J. (2011) ‘Understanding the global Indian mindset’, Lecture at University of Vienna, 29 March 2011.

38


Virmani, B.R. (1997) ‘Changing work practices: world scenario and Indian imperatives’, Abhigyan, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.23–32. Virmani, B.R. (2000) Managing People in Organization, Response Books. New Delhi: Sage Publication. Virmani, B.R. (2005) ‘Cultural dilemma in Indian management’, Paper submitted in Workshop on Indian Culture and Management, COSMODE Management Research Centre, Hyderabad, 14–16 April. Virmani, B.R. and Guptan, S. (1991) Indian Management. New Delhi: Vision Books.

Notes 1

Available at: http://www.moneymint.in/business/steep-rise-in-mergers-and-acquisitions-duringq1-2010-up-by-76, Accessed on 20 November 2010. 2 Available at: http://www.investinindia.com/investmentindia/2010/06/30/indian-mergers-andacquisition-investments-increases-four-fold/, Accessed on 21 February 2011. 3 Available at: http://www.brookfieldgrs.com/knowledge/grts_research/, Accessed on 21 February 2011. 4 Available at: http://www.livemint.com/2010/05/16224221/Indian-firms-turn-to-expats.html, Accessed on 21 February 2011. 5 Cited in Business Today, 10 July 2006, p.29. 6 Overview: Is there An Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, 2 October 2009, PSENG 2010 Study Group, Available at: http://pseng2010.blogspot.com/2009/10/overview-is-thereindian-way-of.html, Accessed on 26 November 2010. 7 Overview: Is there An Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, 2 October 2009, PSENG 2010 Study Group, Available at: http://pseng2010.blogspot.com/2009/10/overview-is-thereindian-way-of.html, Accessed on 10 January 2011.

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians ...

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians ...

Suggest Documents

Deconstructing the Cognitive Estimation Task: A ... - Nature

Deconstructing the nature of episodic foresight ... - Wiley Online Library

Deconstructing Monogamy

Indians Teaching Indians - University of Georgia College of Education

Population of Overseas Indians

HANDBOOK INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA

Population of Overseas Indians

Deconstructing Decoherence

North American Indians: Indians of the Plains - Digital Commons ...

Deconstructing acrophobia - University of Queensland

Deconstructing Historic Vessels

Deconstructing Process Isolation - CiteSeerX

Deconstructing Disengagement - CiteSeerX

Deconstructing Dickinson's Dharma

Deconstructing Javanese Batik Motif

Deconstructing and Reconstructing Identity

Deconstructing the Cosmological Constant

Introduction: Deconstructing 'the Popular'

DECONSTRUCTING EVALUATION IN EDUCATION

DECONSTRUCTING A KITCHEN

Deconstructing Culinary Culture - CiteSeerX

Deconstructing failure - Reputability LLP

Deconstructing Culinary Culture - CiteSeerX

Deconstructing schizophrenia - INTAR