L... :

 
 

 

 

.5. 1...

_... 5.7..

$5 3.: i 3%

. .. 1x
amt»... .1?

 

 

.u .{lii
.11 .1 .

 

   
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

9 a}

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES:THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SAUDI NATIONALCULTURE AND THE ROLES OF SCHOOL LEADERS
IN SAUDI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

presented by

Saleh S. Alshaya

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D . Educational Administration
degree in

E >gajor professor

Philip A. Cusick

 

 

Date éfl/yl

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuopGS—p. 1 5

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAUDI NATIONAL
CULTURE AND THE ROLES OF SCHOOL LEADERS

IN SAUDI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

By

Saleh Sulaiman Alshaya

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

2002

ABSTRACT
CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAUDI NATIONAL

CULTURE AND THE ROLES OF SCHOOL LEADERS
IN SAUDI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

By
Saleh S. Alshaya

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative roles in
the Saudi public schools. National culture has been shown to be a key factor
in the direction of administrative practices. Hofstede's (1980, 1991) theory
specifies that organizational behavior is not independent of national culture.
The current study was conducted to explore the extent to which
organizational and administrative role is dependent on national culture.

Empirical data were collected, conducted, and analyzed through two
methods: the questionnaire completed by 180 participants and interviews with
16 Saudi administrators. A framework of reference was established by using
Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) theory as a foundation for analysis for the purpose of
this study.

Findings from the survey (Hofstede’s VSM 94) represent the first part
of this study. They described the Saudi national culture and indicated that
Saudi national culture creates a unique performance and a restricted practice
of the organizational responsibilities. The present study revealed that Saudi

schools are significantly high on both power distance and uncertainty

avoidance, considerably low on individualism, relatively low on masculinity,
and short on term orientation.

The second part consisted of interviews which relied on the first part
and explained the direction of organizational responsibilities flow within Saudi
public schools. The cultural setting shaping the mentality and behavior of the
Saudis and these behaviors were analyzed from a unique blend of two things:
first, national culture affects people thinking about their Organization, second,
national culture affects people thinking about People in organizations.

In the light of what school administrators described as Saudi Culture
the findings explained to what extent that Saudi administrators implement the
modern bureaucracy on their organizational responsibilities, and explored the
applicability of Western style in a Saudi context. The findings suggest that
most Western management theories are not appropriate for the Saudi culture.
Consequently, Saudi school leaders should adapt them to the Saudi culture
rather than vice versa.

In sum, the findings show that elements of cultural background were a
strong precursor of administrators” responsibilities in organizations. As such,
national culture was an important consideration in understanding
administrators’ role and follower behaviors and in developing appropriate

leader training activities.

COPYRIGHT BY

SALEH S. ALSHAYA
2002

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents for their
years of patience, supporting, and encouragement
me for years to achieve my goal and complete my
study. Special recognition is paid to my loving wife
Haya who manages to survive my passion for
learning. To my children, the hundreds of days
spent completing a Ph.D. was taken primarily from

time I should have spent with them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I sincerely thank Dr. Philip Cusick, the chairperson of my dissertation
committee and also my program advisor, for his excellent support, guidance,
and patience over years. I appreciate his warm support and concern to
complete the program. The encouragement he gave me throughout this
dissertation work has been invaluable. He challenged me to extend my
thinking and knowledge and give me the confidence to continue on.

My appreciation also to my committee members, Dr. BetsAnn Smith,
Dr. Stephen Kaagan, and Dr. Georgia Chao, for their interest in my research
and for their valuable suggestions and recommendations for improving this
dissertation. Each provided a different perspective that contributed
substantially to this work; all have served as devoted professionals that
believe in the importance of what they are doing. They have been my
mentors and will continue to be my models. Finally, I thank the respondents

collectively since they must remain anonymous.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... X
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... XI
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 1
Background .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................ 2
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................ 6
The Exploratory Questions ..................................................................... 7
The Research Questions ......................................................................... 8
Methodology ............................................................................................. 8
Definition of Terms ................................................................................... 9
Contributions of the Study .................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ...................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................... 13
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................... 13
An Overview of the Traditional Societies ............................................. 13
The School Bureaucracy ....................................................................... 18
The Theoretical Basis of “Culture” ....................................................... 21
Definition of Culture .............................................................................. 21

A Focus on National Culture ................................................................. 23
Dimensions of National Culture ............................................................ 27
Hofstede’s Dimensional Model ............................................................. 27

I] Collectivism vs. Individualism ..................................................... 29

I] Uncertainty Avoidance ................................................................. 30

D Masculinity .................................................................................... 31

I] Power-Distance ............................................................................. 31

I] Long-Short-Term Orientation ....................................................... 32
Applications of Model ..................................................................... 33

The Effects of National Culture ............................................................. 35
The Effects of National Culture on the School Leader .................... 37
Individualism/Collectivism and the School Leader ............................ 38
Masculinity and the School Leader ................................................... 39
Long-Short Term Orientation and the School Leader ........................ 39

The Effects of National Culture on the School Organization .......... 40
Power Distance and the Organization ............................................... 41
Uncertainty Avoidance and Organization .......................................... 42

The Present Study .................................................................................. 43
Summary ................................................................................................. 45

vii

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................... 47

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 47
The Participants and Setting ................................................................. 48
The Sampling Techniques ................................................................. 48

[1 Random Sampling .................................................................. 48

[1 Theoretical sampling .............................................................. 49
Selection Considerations ................................................................... 50
The Setting .......................................................................................... 51
The Research Questions ....................................................................... 52
Data Collection Guides and Procedures .............................................. 53
Instruments ......................................................................................... 54

[I A Questionnaire ...................................................................... 54

I] An in-Depth Interview ............................................................. 56
Development of the Interview Questions .................................. 57
Conducting the Interviews .......................................................... 59
Technique of Interviewing .......................................................... 62

The Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 63
D The Analysis of the Questionnaire ................................................. 64

I] The Analysis of the Interview ......................................................... 65
Reliability and Validity ........................................................................... 68
Summary ................................................................................................. 70
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................ 71
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................................... 71
Quantitative Data Analysis and Results ............................................... 71
Findings of the Questionnaire ........................................................... 72
Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................... 73
Characteristics of Individual Respondents ..................................... 74

The Description of Saudi National Culture ................................... 79
Power Distance Index (PDI) .......................................................... 80
Long-tenn Orientation Index (LTO) ................................................ 82
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) ................................................ 84
Masculinity Index (MAS) ................................................................ 86
Individualism Index (IDV) ............................................................... 88
General Discussion ............................................................................ 91
Saudi National Culture among Other Cultures ............................. 92
Combinations of Cultural Dimensions ........................................ 104
Power Distance Combined with Uncertainty Avoidance .............. 104
Uncertainty Avoidance combined with Masculinity/Femininity ..... 105
Qualitative Data Analysis and Results ............................................... 107
Findings of the In-depth Interviews ................................................ 107
The Effects of Saudi National Culture on Organization ................... 108
Supporting Research Finds ......................................................... 120

viii

The Effects of Saudi National Culture on People in Organization 123

Supporting Research Finds ......................................................... 134

Modern Bureaucracy and Organizational Responsibilities .............. 137
Summary ........................................................................................... 155
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................ 158
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 158
A Conceptual Framework for Understanding National Culture ........ 159

A Summary of the Findings ................................................................. 161
The Key Contributions ......................................................................... 167
Limitations ............................................................................................ 168
Recommendations ............................................................................... 169
APPENDICES ........................................................................................... 170
APPENDIX A: ............................................................................................ 171
VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994 QUESTIONNAIRE .......................... 171
APPENDIX B: ............................................................................................ 174
INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................... 174
APPENDIX C: ............................................................................................ 177
CONSENT FORM .................................................................................. 177
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT .................................... 178
APPENDIX D: ............................................................................................ 179
(UCRIHS) ............................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX E: ............................................................................................ 180
Letter of Phone Interview Conformation ................................................. 180
APPENDIX F: ............................................................................................ 181
Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 181
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 186

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Educational Districts in Saudi Arabia - 2000 ............................ 52
Table 2: The Formula for Index Calculation ........................................... 65
Table 3: Survey Response and Rates ...................................................... 72
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Respondents to VSM 94 .................... 74
Table 5: Education of Respondents to VSM 94 ...................................... 75
Table 6: Age of Respondents To VSM 94 ............................................... 77
Table 7: Job occupation of Respondents to VSM 94 ............................. 78
Table 8: Mean of PDI .................................................................................. 81
Table 9: Mean of LTO ................................................................................. 83
Table 10: Mean of UAI ................................................................................ 85
Table 11: Mean of MAS ............................................................................. 87
Table 12: Mean of IDV ................................................................................ 89
Table 13: A Summary of Descriptive Statistics ....................................... 91
Table 14: VSM 94 for some Country Rankings ........................................ 92
Table 15: Power Distance Index (PDI) Values ......................................... 94
Table 16: Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) Values ............................ 97
Table 17: Individualism Index (IDV) Values ............................................. 99
Table 18: Masculinity Index (MAS) Values ............................................. 101
Table 19: Long-term orientation (LTO) Index values ............................ 102

Table 20: Comparison between the United State and Saudi Arabia.... 103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Layers ....................................................... 23
Figure 2: Hammer and Champy’s Model .................................................. 24
Figure 3: Gender Demographics from VSM 94 ........................................ 75
Figure 4: Level of Education VSM 94 ....................................................... 76
Figure 5: Age Findings VSM 94 ................................................................ 77
Figure 6: Job Occupation VSM 94 ............................................................ 78
Figure 7: Findings of PDI .......................................................................... 82
Figure 8: Findings of LTO ......................................................................... 84
Figure 9: Findings of UAI .......................................................................... 86
Figure 10: Findings of MAS ...................................................................... 88
Figure 11: Findings of IDV ........................................................................ 90

Figure 12: The position of some countries on the Power Distance and
Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions. ............................................... 105
Figure 13: The position of some countries on the Masculinity/Femininity

and Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions ......................................... 106

xi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative roles in
Saudi public schools. Specifically, the study described national culture in
Saudi schools using Hofstede’s model, and to the description of Saudi
national culture, it was explained how school administrators carry out their
organizational roles.
Background

Attitudes, emotions, orientations, and expressions differ strongly
among people from one nation or another. These differences are
fundamentally cultural. There are numerous examples of difficulties and
conflicts between people, whether they are policy decision-makers,
managers of corporations, or school leaders trying to communicate or even
cooperate with people from other cultures. Hofstede (1991, 2001) stated that
understanding and overcoming differences requires a cultural analysis, an
analysis with a high receptiveness for the cultural issue. The issue of culture
is summarizing the influence of deeply-rooted values or shared normative,
moral, or principles that guide action and serve as standards to evaluate

behavior.

Cultural distinctions are based in these deeply-rooted values which,
according to Hofstede’s theory, can be described along five fundamental
dimensions. National cultures, Hofstede points out, represent a nation’s
unique solution on how to deal with social inequality (Power Distance), the
degree of integration of individuals within groups (Individualism-Collectivism),
the division of social roles between women and men (Femininity-Masculinity),
the tolerance for the unknown (Uncertainty Avoidance), and the trade-off
between long-term and short-tenn gratification of needs (Long-Term
Orientation).

Despite the fact that Saudi schools have a professional full-time
government organized into offices and departments, participants’ reports of
administration practices should reflect the traditional authority of their society
rather than the legal-rational principles that are relatively more characteristic
of American organizations (Ali, 1990). School leaders, who share the same
traditional expectations, would be expected to operate according to these
traditional organizing principles. Within Saudi Arabia, the educational
institutions as governmental organizations are relatively influenced by
Western bureaucratic principles. This is because their concern for
development and innovation will guide the leaders of schools to be more
concerned with quality and efficiency (All, 1986).

Statement of the Problem
Western methods of administration and philosophies of education

have generally been adopted as part of these foreign systems of public

education. The globalization of the past two decades has (often unwittingly)
fostered homogenization of educational values, programs, and practices
across the world. Private elementary and secondary schools and universities
are now setting up offshore branches in other parts of the world on a new
scale. Education is becoming internationalized to an extent that would have

been quite unimaginable just two or three decades ago.

In fast-growing Saudi economies, however, local scholars and national
leaders are beginning to ask questions that strike to the heart of the
educational organizations (Bajunid, 1996). Their questions include, for

example:

. Is the general acceptance of Western educational practices

appropriate to Saudi national goals?

0 Are the educational practices they have adopted from the West

consistent with and sustaining of Saudi cultural heritage?

. What are Saudi intellectual traditions and indigenous approaches to

education and cultural transmission?

0 How does the native knowledge embedded in Saudi culture fit with the
theories, assumptions, and practices embedded in Western-derived

educational programs?

These questions are being raised not only in academia, but also in
schools and in the communities they serve. The recent furor over the foreign

and western experts in Saudi Arabia is a suitable example of cultural conflict

over educational values. Similarly, controversy over the understanding of
tracking experts and reformers reflect clashes between main national culture

and the educational practices of different nations.

Cultural values play a major role in shaping the people and practices
that occur within organizations. They influence how members react to
organizational phenomena (Cummings & Worley, 1997). Like most
organizational problems, it has both structural and human aspects. The
people involved react according to their mental software. Part of this mental
software consists of people’s ideas about what an organization should be like

(Hofstede, 1991).

The national culture embedded within the organization can have a
powerful influence on members’ reactions to the role of administrators toward
schools. Thus, researchers in educational administration field the need to
account for the cultural values and assumptions held by schools’ members.
They need to be modified to fit the local culture, particularly when school
practices developed in one culture are applied to educational organizations in
another culture.

Refusing to recognize differences between societies makes it critical
to understand how cultural factors influence the role of school administrators
and the nature of organization. The researcher is beginning to ask
questions, about how Saudi school administrators behave inside the Saudi

culture compared to how school administrators in different cultures behave,

and how and why specific cultural attributes affect the role of Saudi school
administrators.

Unfortunately, our current understanding of how specific cultural
attributes affect the role of Saudi school administrators is very limited. Saudi
reformers and administrators who struggle to make decisions that can be
implemented successfully must know how cultural values function and
interact within institutions.

Hofstede’s model of culture provides an effective framework for the
description of national culture.(see Hofstede’s theory in chapter two) From
the researcher point of view, the study of Hofstede’s dimensions has one
weakness. No Arab nation is included in it, and the researcher saw an
opportunity to fill the gap. This study also creates an opportunity to advance
our theoretical knowledge by considering the cultural dimensions which lead
to a comprehensive set of propositions about the role of school
administrators in Saudi schools.

The recent reforms efforts rise of Saudi Arabia makes this an
appropriate time to open our thinking about theories and methods of
structuring, organizing, and administering education throughout the world.
Western cultural and intellectual frameworks have dominated internationally
disseminated theories of educational leadership and have ignored a range of
other frameworks (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng, 1995; Hallinger, 1995; Wong,
1996). There are potential benefits to theory as well as to practice in

widening the cultural and intellectual lenses being used in the field.

Conceptual Framework

The culture concept was the framework of reference for this study,
and it was established as a foundation for analysis for the purpose of this
study. Culture is reflected in the way that managers in an organization
identify tasks, prioritize them, set objectives and administer resources to
achieve them (Schein, 1986), and the way in which staff respond. It is
reflected in the loyalty and commitment of staff involved in the strategic
decision-making process to the organization (O’Reilly, 1989).

Culture affects the ways in which people consciously and
subconsciously think, make decisions and, ultimately, the way in which they
perceive, feel and act towards opportunities and threats presented by the
internal and external environments (Hansen &Wernerfelt, 1989). These
patterns of behavioral assumptions continue to influence behaviors because
they persistently lead people to make decisions that have traditionally worked
for the organization. It is argued that, with time, such behavioral
assumptions drop out of people’s consciousness; they become so powerful,
underlying, and unquestioned that they continue to influence organizational
behavior and decision making even when the organization's environment
changes (Dennison, 1990).

This study is, to a large extent, based on the vague concept of
"culture.” A presentation of the way this concept is defined and used in this
study is deemed necessary to avoid confusion. Culture is, in Hofstede’s

words, the “collective mental programming” that makes members of one

group differ from those of others (Hofstede, 1980). It shapes behavior and
perceptions and is passed on by the older members of the group to its
younger members (Carrol, 1982).

The 19903, Hofstede published a more accessible version of his
research publication in “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind”
(Hofstede, 1991). His focus was not on defining culture as refinement of the
mind (or “highly civilized” attitudes and behavior) but rather on highlighting
essential patterns of thinking. feeling. and acting. These cultural differences
manifest themselves in a culture’s choices of symbols, heroes/heroines.
rituals. and values. Hofstede identified five dimensions, which the researcher
explains further in chapter two

This work of Hofstede (1980, 1984, 1991, 1997) and his five cultural
dimensions have been well documented In the cultural values literature. As
the level of influence on world education reforms by traditional society
increases, it will be advantageous for Saudi education reformers to obtain a
better concept of how Saudi administrators’ values relate to their own
traditional value-systems. A
The Exploratory Questions

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative role in
Saudi pilblic schools. Exploring and explorting the dimensions of culture as it
effects the working of the organization may become a necessity and not an

option for successful theory and practice.

The Research Questions

Q1. How does a select set of Saudi administrators describe their culture?
And how does their description of Saudi culture compare to other cultures
studied by Hofstede’s Model?

Q. 2. Relative to the elements illustrated in their description of their culture,
how do they carry out their organizational and educational roles?

Q. 3. In constructing their roles and in light of what they described as Saudi
culture, to what extent do Saudi administrators implement the modern
bureaucratic (Western style) on their organizational responsibilities?
Methodology

To derive appropriate data to address the research questions, the
researcher used two instruments: The first is a survey which uses Hofstede’s
Values Survey Module to determine and describe the national culture of
Saudi school administrators. The survey was forward via email to a
representative sample of 180 male and female school administrators of
varying ranks in 42 districts in Saudi Arabia.

The second instrument is qualitative interviewing in which the
researcher posed questions to Saudi administrators in a way designed (in the
light of their national culture which described by Hofstede’ Model) to
ascertain and explore their views on the role of school administrator in their
own terms and framework of understanding.

Once the researcher decided on the characteristics of his informants

(length of tenure, male and female administrators, in Saudi public schools,

lengths of experience representing different positions in the public school ),

he then decided the best way to use the school administrators’ perspectives

to describe and explain to what extent that school administrators’ roles have

related to national culture. In particular, he studied how school

administrators carry out their organizational responsibilities in light of their

national culture. The researcher believes the experienced school

administrator who has the information slhe is interested in national culture.
The empirical data was collected from conducted and analyzed

interviews with 20 school administrators who participated in the

questionnaire. The interview frame consisted of female and male school

principals, and of school superintendents and supervisors at school districts

in Saudi Arabia.

Definition of Terms

0 Cultural values: values held by members of a particular country or
region. These values inform people about what behavior is important
and acceptable in their culture. Cultural values play a major role in
shaping the people and practices that occur within organizations.
They influence how members react to organizational phenomena
having to do with power, conflict, uncertainty, time, and change
(Cummings & Worley, 1997).
. National culture: the values, beliefs, and assumptions learned in

early childhood that differentiates one group of people from another

(Hofstede, 1991). It has been shown to be a relatively stable

component of countries (Sparrow, 1997; Hofstede, 1993; Adler, 1997).
National culture is the software of the mind (Hofstede, 1991), and it is
deeply embedded in everyday life and fairly resistant to change
(Newman and Nollen, 1996).

Role: The concept of role is grounded in social role theory. Getzels;
Lipham, and Campbell (1968) explained: “A role exists only within a
particular social system, represents a particular position within that
system, and implies a pattern of more or less obligatory behavior on
the part of the role incumbent in relation to other role incumbents in
the system.” (p.61). Furthermore, “a role represents the dynamic
aspect of a status” (Getzels et al., 1968, p.61). When the person
occupying this position “puts the rights and duties which constitute the
status into effect, he is performing a role” (Getzels, 1968).
Bureaucracy: A bureaucracy has been described as an organization
possessing a mechanistic management system (Burns & Stalker,
1961). Weber (1947) used the term bureaucracy to describe an
organization ordered by rules, laws, and regulations, and indicated
that bureaucracies possess hierarchies with systems of super- and
subordination. The management of the modern bureaucracy is based
on written documents, such as standard operating procedures, which
are more or less stable, exhaustive, and which can be Ieamed

(Weber, 1947).

10

Contributions of the Study

1.

This study adds to the literature in the following ways:
It adds to the understanding of the organizational implications of cultural
values.
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, it was the first attempted
replication of Hofstede’s research regarding national values in the
context of Saudi Schools. Saudi Arabia was not including in Hofstede’s
study, and this study fills that gap.
It adds to a small but growing body of empirical research concerning
unique cultural values in Saudi education.
It adds new knowledge to school administrators who will be better able
to understand the culture within which they operate.
This study also assists the leadership of the subject school with future
research and evaluation efforts by providing baseline information from
which to design these studies. Schein (1984) stated “what one brings
culture to the level of the organization and even down to groups within
the organization, one can see more clearly how it is created, embedded,

developed, and ultimately manipulated, managed, and changed” (p.1).

Organization of the Study

This study was organized into the following chapters. Chapter one

introduces the topic of the study, the statement of the problem, research

questions, definition of terms, contributions of the study, and a brief

description of the organization of the study. Chapter two presents the review

11

of the literature to establish the basis for the research questions. It covers
major theory and concept of culture, the dimensions of national culture,
Hofstede’s dimensional model, and available research on applications of the
model. Chapter three discusses the methods which were used in the present
study. It also presents a brief description of the research site and sample;
this includes a description of the participants, the school administrators in the
Saudi schools and districts, the setting of the study, and more detailed
information on data collection guides, procedures, and analysis. Chapter
four presents the analysis of the findings and data presentation which
answered the research questions. The patterns and trends become evident
through analysis of the interviews. Chapter five includes a summary of the
study, the conclusion, and recommendations. The list of references includes

books, articles, and researches which completed the study.

12

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Previous scholarship on culture relevance will help to frame the
proposed research. This chapter includes both a theoretical framework and
empirical studies. The discussion of this chapter has been divided into six
areas. First, an overview of the traditional societies is provided. Second, a
general description of the school as a bureaucratic organization is presented.
Third, the theoretical basis of culture is discussed. After that, a more detailed
look at the terminology of culture illustrates how different cultures shape
behavior and structure one’s perception of the world. Then, a demonstration
of interaction between culture and the practices of leaders in schools is
presented, followed by an explanation of Hofstede’s Dimensional Model.
Aftenrvard, applications of this model are presented. And finally, the national
culture and the role of school administrators are reviewed.

An Overview of the Traditional Societies

In order to describe the Saudi national culture, a brief introduction of
traditional societies is presented in this section.

Weber argued that society is no thing-in-itself, but the product of a
huge number of individual actions. (Actions are behavior governed by
motives) (Spickard, 1996). On a logical basis, the number of pure types of
action is restricted. Weber identifies four chief types: goal-rational, value-

rational, emotional, and traditional.

13

1. Each pure type has certain logical consequences, which the

social analyst may spell out to get an abstract picture of social

action.

2. Empirical actions are a combination of these types. A particular
empirical analysis will assess which types of action are involved

in a given setting.

3. By combining the abstract analysis of the logic of pure types

with the concrete analysis of a given situation, the analyst can

make predictions as to the future course of events in that

setting.

In the traditional societies of Saudi Arabia, and in many other such
societies, construction activities were carried out by the members of the
community who owned the work. These members shared the same ways of
thinking, feeling, and acting, and there was general harmony in construction
activities because the actions of each member of the construction team could
be predicted fairly accurately.

Weber sought to understand the differences between traditional
societies and those of the modern West. However, he saw the difference as
a matter of individual motivation. That is, the West's development was the
result of unique, culturally normative, motivational structures, which lead
individuals to act differently than in traditional societies.

Middle Eastern societies, as well as their Western counterparts, are

based on universal notions of solidarity. According to Durkheim (1984), in

14

traditional and in modern societies it is a form an organic solidarity. In both
societies, solidarity depends not on the institution of the state but on
collective consciousness (Durkheim 1984). In Habennas’ (1968) terms, the
civil/ non-state realm is where democratic action of “will formation” based on
“communicative interaction” takes place.

Western authority structures are also different from those of traditional
societies.

0 Individuals in traditional societies followed leaders
because of their personal qualities (charisma) or because
of tradition.
. Individuals in modern societies have these motives, but

also follow leaders because they are duly constituted: they

are legal. The dominance of rational-legal authority is new

to the modern West.

The social result of this dominance of rationality as a motive in the
West is two-faced: on the one hand it has improved people's material lives;
on the other hand it has undercut their individuality and their emotional ties to
one another. Weber sees the increasing rationalization of life as inevitable,
only broken occasionally by charismatic leaders who restore a sense of
personal qualities to the world (Spickard, 1996).

In traditional societies, people form an organic community and,
therefore, consider fellow members as sacred, fully human, and not simply

matter to be manipulated or subjected to contractual relationships and

15

rational objective calculations. Moreover, people in traditional societies live in
close proximity, which makes objective rational relationships impossible.
Because the community is closely knit, its tolerance of envy and competition
is very low, and secrets cannot be kept.

The ruling elite usually fears the concentration of power and state
secrets in the hands of a single group. A native, as a member of the
community, can always use the power he has mustered or the secrets he
has gathered to bargain for a bigger share in power (Diallo, 1996). For all
these reasons, traditional societies allow, and even welcome, the existence
of functional groups to perform the jobs that the structure of society, and its
view of itself.

In a society, people set up rules with which society was organized and
the ways of living. These sets of rules and ways of living are called values.
To put these values in clear and specific context, people who lived according
to these past values are called traditionalists. These traditional values were
well considered and they played fundamental roles within traditional societies
(Diallo, 1996).

In the last few decades, knowledge in bureaucracies has greatly
increased. Since they came with their own methods of discovering and
accepting work and structure, modern bureaucracies, compared to traditional
values and culture, are new knowledge or modern bureaucracies. As a
result, two blocs were born within the societies: a bloc favoring traditional

values, and a bloc favoring modern bureaucracies (Diallo, 1996).

16

Furthermore, questions are raised. Is there any reason for the two blocs to
be so opposite? Is it not possible to find room for improvement in order to
make these two so-called opposite sides get along by bringing them into
complementing each other?

Wherever a society is established, there are a number of ideas that
govern it. Historically, people live according to values which are inherent to
them. As there is need to qualify these values, the word values goes along
with tradition - related to the past customs. Traditional values played
fundamental roles in the traditional societies.

Moreover, both traditional and modern bureaucracies can be in the
same room. They aim to raise the standard of living of the society and to
develop it. Used constructively and relatively, they won’t have any reason to
be opposite. An official of Saudi government, Dr. AI-Awaad, said that there
is need for people to benefit from modern knowledge in order “to learn how to
bind words together,” which means to cultivate oneself with the mix of the
two cultures. Today, with globalization, there is no reason for cultures and
values to keep away from each other. Everything will be globalized, and no
one can prevent things from becoming globalized.

In short, traditional values and culture played fundamental roles in the
societies. Modern bureaucracies, which gave birth to modern concepts,
created the conflict between traditional values and modern bureaucracies.
But they have also widened our vision and understanding of the world. Both

traditional and modern bureaucracies were seen as opposite because of

17

misunderstanding and misconception. Nowadays, used constructively,
positively, and selectively, both traditional values and modern will cease to
become enemies and will also become people’s cure (Diallo, 1996).

The School Bureaucracy

In order to describe the process and the practices of Saudi public
school, the structural element should be defined. This section presents
bureaucracies and their origin and intents

The structural element of the school as social system is found in its
formal organization. Max Weber’s (1947) analysis of bureaucracy is a good
beginning point for the present study of organizational structure in schools
because it is the theoretical basis of most research in this field. Max Weber
studied the new forms of organization being developed for managing large
numbers of people in complex activities. Weber’s form was rapidly adopting
the organizational methods developed in the United States and others
countries. From this scene, Weber attempted to isolate the elements
common to all of these new organizations.

Weber concluded that all these new organizations were similar, each
was a bureaucracy. Weber’s purpose, however, was to define the essential
features of new organizations and to indicate why these organizations
worked so much better than traditional ones. Consider the features that
Weber found in bureaucracies:

Primarily, Weber emphasized that bureaucratic organizations were an

attempt to control human affairs to the rule of reason to make it possible to

18

conduct the business of the organization “according to calculable rules. For
people who developed modern organizations, the purpose was to find
rational solutions to the new problems.

Weber saw bureaucracy as the rational product of social engineering,
he wrote:

The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic
organization has always been its purely technical
superiority over any former organization. The fully
developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with
other organizations exactly as does the machine with
non-mechanical modes of production (Weber, 1947).

For Weber, the term bureaucracy was always together with the term
rationality: “Rational bureaucracy.” But what were the features developed to
make bureaucracies rational? Researchers have already met them: (1)
functional specialization (2) clear lines of hierarchical authority, (3) expert
training of managers, and (4) decision making based on rules and tactics
developed to guarantee consistent and effective pursuit of organizational
goals. To ensure order in decision making, business is conducted primarily
through written rules records, and communications.

Weber's idea of functional specialization applies both to persons
within an organization and to relations between larger units or divisions of the
organization. Work is broken down into many special tasks, and employees
are assigned to one or a few such tasks, including the tasks involved in

coordinating the work of others. Such coordination is called administration or

management.

19

Furthermore, organization is separated into a number of divisions,
each specializing in one of the tasks in the elaborate process. Weber argued
that such specialization is essential to a rational bureaucracy and that the
specific boundaries separating one functional division from another must be
fixed by explicit rules, regulations, and procedures.

For Weber, coordinating the divisions of large organizations requires
clear lines of authority organized in a hierarchy. That means there are clear
“levels of graded authority.” All employees in the organization must know
who their boss is, and each person should always respect the chain of
command; that is, people should give orders only to their own subordinates
and receive orders only through their own immediate superior. In this way,
the people at the top can be sure that orders arrive where they are meant to
go and know where responsibilities lie. Furthermore, hierarchical authority is
required in bureaucracies so that highly trained experts can he properly used
as managers. Rational bureaucracies can be operated, Weber argued, only
by organizing managers at all levels that have been selected and trained for
their specific jobs.

Finally, Weber stressed that rational bureaucracies must be managed
in accordance with carefully developed rules and principles that can be
learned and applied, and that transactions and decisions must be recorded
so that rules can he reviewed. Only with such rules and principles can the
activities of hundreds of managers at different levels in the organization be

predicted and coordinated. If we cannot predict what others will do, then we

20

cannot count on them. In sum, Weber’s (1947) classic analysis of
bureaucracy is a good example of the organizational structure in schools.
The Theoretical Basis of “Culture”

The major theory in this study is the culture concept as a theoretical
framework of reference. This framework is established as a foundation for
analysis for the purpose of this study.

Definition of Culture

Culture is reflected in the way that managers in an organization
identify tasks, prioritize them, set objectives and administer resources to
achieve them (Schein, 1986) and the way in which the staff responds. It is
reflected in the loyalty and commitment of staff involved in the strategic
decision-making process to the organization (O’Reilly, 1989).

One definition of a culture was given by anthropologist Geertz (1993,
p89): “It denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in
symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by
means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge
about and attitudes toward life.”

Kluckhorn and Kroeberg (1952) referred to culture as:

Patterns of behaviors that are acquired and

transmitted by symbols over time, which become

generally shared within a group and are

communicated to new members of the group in order

to serve as a cognitive guide or blueprint for future

actions (cited in Black & Mendenhall, 1990, p.120)

This conception is distinct from, though related to, the institutional

context and organizational culture in which the school administrator operates.

21

Recent definitions of culture have been associated with studies of
organizational cultures. Schein (1996), locating the first academic
inclinations to employ organizational culture in the 19603, noted that until
then:

We did not grasp that norms held tacitly across large

social units were much more likely to change leaders

than to be changed by them. We failed to note that

"culture" viewed as such taken-for-granted, shared, tacit

ways of perceiving, thinking and reacting, was one of the

most powerful and stable forces operating in

organization.(p. 231 ).

Subsequently, scholars have accepted that human interaction within
social systems reflects the values and behavioral norms that underlie the
surrounding culture (Getzels et al., 1968; Hofstede, 1980). But empirical
research on culture and administration remains relatively sparse. As Schein
(1996) argued:

We need to understand better what the forces are

that cause organizations of all kinds to create similar

cultural milieux, incentive and control systems that

operate in the same way, even though the goals of

the organizations are different. (p. 234)

Another definition of culture was given by Scollon (1995, p126). He
classify two norms of culture: “high culture” and “anthropological culture”.
“High culture" focuses on intellectual and artistic achievements”.
“Anthropological culture means” are any of the customs, worldview,
language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted,

day-to-day practices a people which set that group apart as a distinctive

group.”

22

Allwood (1997) describes culture by presenting its four main aspects:
thought norms, behavior norms, artifact norms, and evidence in nature.
Culture is some kind of acquired thing that can pass from one generation to
another generation. Culture can be interpreted in different patterns: religion,
ideology, philosophy, aesthetics and science (Geertz, 1993). Culture can be
decoded in a level of society, group, or individual. In a context of Human
Resource Management, culture can be classified into two categories:
national culture and organizational or corporate culture.

A Focus on National Culture

This study is, to a large extent, based on the quite vague concept of
“culture.” A presentation of the way this concept is defined and used in this
study is deemed necessary to avoid confusion. Culture is, in Hofstede’s
words, the “collective mental programming” that makes members of one
group differ from those of others (Hofstede, 1980). It shapes behavior and
perceptions and is passed on by the older members of the group to its
younger members (Carrol, 1982). In the following model, Hofstede (1991)
presents three layers of culture. The first layer is national culture, the most
deeply rooted layer and the most difficult one to change.

Figure 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Layers

 

 

 

Cultural Layers: Main Expressions:
Corporate culture / Corporate practices
m . .
Professional culture Professronal ethics
National culture Reli ious values
VALUES 9 ,
Basrc assumptions

 

 

 

23

According to Hofstede (1991), national culture is mainly expressed
through values and, to a lesser extent, through practices, whereas corporate
culture is mainly expressed through practices rather than deep values.
Values and beliefs actually appear as the starting point in Hammer and
Champy’s system form (Hammer and Champy, 1993) below. This model

shows how values and beliefs ultimately affect the business practices.

Figure 2: Hammer and Champy’s Model

VALUES AND BELIEFS

PRACTICES JOBS AND STRUCTURES
MANAGEMENT AND
MESASUREMENT SYSTEMS

Hammer and Champy’s model implies that corporate culture can be
traced back to national culture. Another implication could be that national
culture can be affected by corporate culture. However, Lewis (1997)
suggests that even in countries going through change, deeply rooted
attitudes, and values are not affected by reforms. Thus, it seems that for the
leadership’s role, national culture must be managed as given.

Hammer and Champy’s and Hofstede’s models, together with Lewis’
statement about national culture, create a point of departure for this study,

namely that awareness of national culture should be of great value in the role

24

of school leadership. National culture cannot be expected to change during
the leadership role, and the essence of national culture, values, and beliefs
ultimately affect leaders’ practices. The cultural layer chosen as the focus for
this study is, therefore, national culture. National culture is unifying view of
culture that is going to anchor this study, the most deeply rooted layer, and
the most difficult one to change and it is mainly expressed through values.

The role of national culture seems to be crucial in explaining national
educational administration differences because national culture affects
organization policies and practices (Hofstede, 1993). As demonstrated by
Wright and Mischel (1987), national cultural values that reinforce human
resources in an organization are more likely to yield predictable behavior and
better performance. This is because similar organization practices are
consistent with existing behavioral expectations and routines that transcend
the workplace. Employees are not distracted from work if organization
practices are consistent with national cultural values (Newman and Nollen,
1996).

Not surprisingly, there is ample evidence that national cultures vary
and management practices vary depending on the national culture in
question (Luthans, Welsh, and Rosenkrantz, 1993; Newman and Nollen,
1996). However, culture can be defined not only at the national level, but
also at the group, organizational, and even international levels, (e.g., “North

American” culture, “European” culture, “Arab” culture, etc.). All these

25

cultures have certain effects on the choice and efficiency of organization
policies and practices.

Therefore, the distinction between national and other types of culture
is important, and has been widely explored in the literature. Nevertheless,
national culture makes a unique contribution to understanding management
policies and practices (Adler, 1997; Evans, 1992). National culture is the
software of the mind (Hofstede, 1991), and it is deeply embedded in
everyday life and fairly resistant to change (Newman and Nollen, 1996).

National culture can have a powerful influence on peoples’ reactions
to administrators’ role toward school effectiveness. Thus, educational
administration researchers need to account for the cultural values held by
school members. Researchers need to be modified to fit the local culture,
particularly when school practices developed in one culture are applied to
educational organizations in another culture. For example, a policy or
practice designed for American school leaders may need to be modified
when applied in other countries.

In sum, culture has been traditionally conceived of at the societal level
of analysis, yet it was recently determined to exist, and found to be
measurable, at the individual level (Dorfman & Howell 1988). In an
organizational context, Hofstede (1984) treats culture as “the collective
programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human

group from another” (p.21) therefore:

26

0 Culture is a collective phenomenon. It is shared by all or almost all
members of some social group
. Culture is learned, not inherited. It derives from one’s social
environment, not from one’s genes. Moreover, it is something the
older members of the group intentionally try to pass on to the younger
members
. Culture shapes behavior and structures one’s perception of the world
(Alder, 1997, p.15; Hofstede, 1997, p.5) of values, beliefs, and
traditions.
Dimensions of National Culture
A national culture is usually characterized by the values of the people
who belong to that culture. A substantial number of studies have found that
cultural differences in values exist (Luthans, Welsh, and Rosenkrantz, 1993).
Hofstede (1980, 1984, 1993), however, has presented perhaps the most
comprehensive, straightforward means to dimensionalize national culture
(Shackleton and All, 1990). His IBM studies revealed four largely
independent dimensions of differences among national values systems.
These were labeled “Power Distance” (large vs. small), “Uncertainty
Avoidance,” “Individualism vs. Collectivism,” and “Masculinity vs. Femininity.”
Hofstede’s Dimensional Model
From 1978-83, the cultural anthropologist Geert Hofstede conducted

detailed interviews with hundreds of IBM employees in 53 countries.

Through standard statistical analysis of fairly large data sets, he was able to

27

determine patterns of similarities and differences among the replies. From
this data analysis, he formulated his theory that world cultures vary along
consistent, fundamental dimensions. Since his subjects were constrained to
one multinational corporation’s worldwide employees, and thus to one
company culture, he ascribed their differences to the effects of their national
cultures. The dimensions developed and empirically examined by Hofstede
(1980, 1991,1997) represent a lifetime of work surrounding the often-
complex phenomenon of culture.

In 1962, anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn posited the existence of
universal categories of culture. He felt that all cultures must answer
“essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by the
generalities of the human situation” (Kluckhohn, 1962, p. 317). Hofstede
maintains that his four-dimensional model responds to Kluckhohn’s
“universal categories of culture” and that his four dimensions relate to basic
issues that all cultures must face. The basic issues involve: (1) human
inequality, (2) uncertainty about the future, (3) the relationship between the
individual and the collective, and (4) the duality of the sexes. Hofstede
(1984) argues that cross-cultural studies lack a theory of culture itself, but he
suggests that his research provides just such a theory by specifying the
elements that compose culture and by identifying four main dimensions along
which dominant value systems of cultures can be ordered. According to
Hofstede, the theory provides a valuable framework for investigating all

cultures and also for comparing one culture to another.

28

Hofstede (1980, 1984) developed his 4-D Model of Cultural
Differences based on a 32-item, work-related value questionnaire
administered to 116,000 workers (managers and non-managers) in 40
countries. In his most recent book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind (1991), he argues that our cultural learning or “mental programming
or software of the mind” begins in the family, develops in schools, and
continues in the workplace. The culture of the workplace, therefore, reflects
the larger culture of which it is a part.

In the 19905, Hofstede published a more accessible version of his
research publication in Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind
(Hofstede). His focus was not on defining culture as refinement of the mind
(or “highly civilized” attitudes and behavior) but rather on highlighting
essential patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. These cultural differences
manifest themselves in a culture’s choices of symbols, heroes/heroines,
rituals, and values. Hofstede identified five dimensions. His five dimensions
of culture are the following:

1) Power-distance. 2) Collectivism vs. individualism. 3) Femininity vs.
masculinity. 4) Uncertainty avoidance. 5) Long-short-term orientation.
- Collectivism vs. Individualism

The first of Hofstede’s dimensions is called individualism, with its polar
opposite collectivism. According to Hofstede (1980, p. 213): “individualism
describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which

prevails in a given society. It is reflected in the way people live together, for

29

example, in nuclear families, or tribes; and it has all kinds of value
implications.” Essentially people with individualist traits tend to take care of
themselves and their immediate families only (they are placing personal
goals ahead of collective goals), while collectivists emphasize a tight social
framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups
(they are characterized by individuals subordinating personal goals for the
good of the collective). In collectivist cultures, people “from birth onwards are
integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime
continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede,
1 991 , p. 51 ).
o Uncertainty Avoidance

Hofstede’s second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, indicates the
extent to which people feel threatened by uncertain and ambiguous
situations. Within the workplace, uncertainty avoidance relates to issues
involving security (e.g., feeling secure in one's position and knowing what to
do and how to behave). People who score high along this dimension try to
avoid uncertain situations by attaining greater career stability and
establishing more rules and policies. Strong uncertainty avoidance people
are also more tolerant of unfairness and more believing in absolute truths.
Members of societies that are weak in uncertainty avoidance tend to be less
affected adversely by ambiguity and also less accepting of inequality and

rules (Hofstede, 1991).

30

o Masculinity

The third dimension developed by Hofstede (1980) is called
masculinity, with its inverse femininity. Typical masculine values, according
to Hofstede’s research, are assertiveness, the acquisition of material things,
and a lack of concern for others. The term “masculinity” was derived from
the fact that men scored higher than women within nearly all societies on the
set of questions in this dimension.

Nevertheless, Hofstede (1980) contends that there are clearly
“feminine” men in masculine societies and “masculine” women in feminine
societies. Masculine cultures tend to emphasize traditionally “masculine”
traits such as assertiveness, advancement, success, and money. In
contrast, cultures on the low end of the masculinity scale (i.e., high on the
feminine end) stress nurturance, human relations, and the quality of life.

. Power-Distance

The fourth dimension from Hofstede’s (1980) original study is power
distance, which is concerned with human inequality. This inequality, as
exhibited in the boss-subordinate relationship, can relate to areas such as
wealth, power, and prestige. The dimension of power distance reflects the
extent to which members of a society express a perception of the unequal
distribution of power in organizations and institutions. People that possess
large power distance values may be accepting of individual differences in
power, and may believe that there is reasonable order of inequality in the

world in which every person has a programmed place. Also, in large power

31

distance cultures, supervisors have much more power than subordinates.
Low power distance people are unperceptive and perhaps unaccepting of
inequality, believing that power should be distributed evenly.

o Long-Short-Term Orientation

Hofstede and Bond (1988) identified a fifth dimension, which is called
Long-Short Term Orientation. Long-Short Term Orientation identifies a core
set of cultural values, which include time orientation. High scores in this
dimension reflect a tendency toward a future-minded mentality and tend to
associate more with the following values: persistence, ordering relationships
by status, thrift, and having a sense of shame. Low scores along this
dimension reveal a culture’s orientation toward the present and past.
Members of short-tenn orientation cultures tend to value the relative
importance of personal steadiness and stability, saving face, respect for
tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts (Hofstede & Bond
1988). In this culture, change can occur more rapidly, as long-term traditions
and commitments do not become impediments to change.

This work of Hofstede (1980, 1984, 1991, 1997) and his four cultural
dimensions have been well documented in the literature. Hofstede and Bond
(1988) developed a fifth dimension that purportedly assesses a culture’s
tendency toward certain traits such as hard work ethic, thrift, and concept of
time. As the level of influence on world education reforms by traditional

society increases, it will be advantageous for education reformers to obtain a

32

better conceptualization of how their values relate to their own traditional
value-systems.
Applications of Model

In Hofstede's original study (1980), subjects were employees of a
corporation, and the four dimensions were based on corporate employee
data. Later Hofstede extended his model to other societal institutions. He
correlated the IBM employee scores with the results of quantitative studies
on families and schools (Hofstede, 1991). Based on these correlations, he
predicted ways in which each dimension could be operationalized in family
and educational settings. For example, he suggests that in large power
distance countries, children are expected to obey their parents in much the
same way as employees are expected to obey their superiors.

In schools, the parent-child relationship is replaced by the teacher-
student relationship. In large power distance countries, Hofstede’s (1991)
correlational data suggest that teachers are treated with respect. The
educational process is teacher-centered; teachers outline the intellectual
paths to be followed. In the classroom there is supposed to be a strict order
with the teacher initiating all communication. Teachers are never publicly
contradicted or criticized and are treated with deference even outside school
(p. 34). In small power distance countries, the situation is reversed.
Teachers treat students as equals and students prefer young teachers over

older ones.

33

In schools, uncertainty avoidance often relates to the amount of
structure in the classroom. Hofstede (1991) suggests that students from
strong uncertainty avoidance countries (i.e., those comfortable with certainty)
favor structured learning situations with precise objectives and assignments
and that they prefer teachers who are professional, know all the answers,
and use academic language. Students from weak uncertainty avoidance
countries (i.e., those comfortable with uncertainty) like open-ended learning
situations are comfortable with teachers who say “I don't know,” and respect
teachers who use plain language.

Students from collectivist cultures define themselves according to
membership in groups and give the maintenance of groups a high priority.
Students from individualist cultures define themselves by individual
achievement. In writing of collectivism in the classroom, Hofstede (1991)
states, “In the collectivist classroom the virtues of harmony and the
maintenance of “face” reign supreme. Confrontations and conflicts should be
avoided, or at least formulated so as not to hurt anyone; even students
should not lose face if this can be avoided.” (p. 62). In contrast, students in
individualist cultures frequently state points of view that are in conflict with
the teacher's or with those of other students. They are also not particularly
concerned with losing face.

Students in masculine cultures value competition and the academic
reputation of teachers, and they make job decisions based on perceived

career opportunities (Hofstede, 1991). Students in feminine cultures value

34

mutual solidarity, and are more likely to make job decisions based on an
intrinsic interest in the subject. Additional research (e.g., Chinese Culture
Connection, 1987; Hofstede & Bond, 1984) provides support for Hofstede's
model and his work is widely recognized within the field of intercultural
communication (Adler, 1997).

Hofstede's (1986, 1991) predictions about how his four dimensions
can be operationalized in educational settings are based on correlation
analyses comparing his corporate data with data from educational studies.
These predictions have not been empirically tested in actual educational
environments. The present study directly examines the responses of Saudi
school leaders to items developed from his predictions.

The Effects of National Culture

A school can be thought of as a set of elements: individual, structural,
and cultural. However, behavior in organization is not simply a function of its
elements and environment forces; it is a function of the interaction of the
elements. To understand the behavior in our schools, it is useful to examine
the interactions among the elements in terms of their harmony, especially in
the context of Saudi schools that face potential challenges with power,
conflict, ambiguity, time, and change.

Cultural values play a major role in shaping the people and practices
that occur within organizations. They influence how members react to
organizational phenomena having to do with power, conflict, uncertainty,

time, and change (Cummings & Worley, 1997).

35

Therefore, this study explores the relationship between national
culture and the role of school administrator. It argues that people carry
“mental programs” which are developed in the family in early childhood and
reinforced in schools and organizations, and that these mental programs
contain a component of national culture. They are most clearly expressed in
the different values that predominate among people from Saudi public
schools.

The interaction between the national culture element and the structure
element generates a unique picture of Saudi school context which is
described by the Hofstede Model. The story describes a quite banal
problem of a kind which occurs regularly in all kinds of organizations. Like
most organizational problems, it has both structural and human aspects. The
people involved react according to their mental software. Part of this mental
software consists of people’s ideas about what an organization should be like
(Hofstede, 1991).

From the five dimensions of national culture described in the previous
section, power distance and uncertainty avoidance in particular affect our
thinking about organizations. Organizing always demands the answering of
two questions: (1) who has the power to make decisions, and (2) what rules
or procedures will be followed to attain the desired ends? The answer to the
first question is influenced by cultural norms of power distance; the answer to
the second question, by cultural norms about uncertainty avoidance. The

remaining three dimensions -individualism, masculinity, and term orientation-

36

affect our thinking about people in organizations, rather than‘about
organizations themselves (Hofstede's, 1991).
The Effects of National Culture on the School Leader

Cultural values are important to leadership behavior because, as
Hofstede (1984) pointed out, “leadership is a compliment to subordinateship”
(p. 257). Unless leaders are able to fulfill subordinates” expectations of what
leadership behavior ought to be within the particular cultural context, leaders
will not be effective. The tendency of treating leadership (and other practices
and theories) as a culture-independent characteristic has been labeled by
Lawrence (1994) as managerial universalism. These labels erroneously
assume that theories developed in one culture-for instance, the United
States-would have global validity.

Much of the writing on cultural differences in leadership, however, is
subjective or conceptual (Gerstner and Day, 1994), and relatively few
empirical studies have investigated the relationship between culture and
leadership. Gerstner and Day (1994) compared leadership examples across
eight countries and found reliable differences of leadership behavior along
cultural dimensions similar to Hofstede's Power Distance, Uncertainty
Avoidance, and Individualism. Tayeb (1996) reviewed the record of
successes and failures of quality circles in several countries. He concluded
that the large degree of Power Distance in Hong Kong resulted in a greater
centralization of decision making and a more autocratic management style.

Because quality circles rely heavily on active involvement by all members,

37

reluctance to disagree with superior-made quality circles and other
participative styles of managing less effective in that country.

A theoretical article by Jung, Bass, and Sosik (1995) addressed the
relationship between Individualism and transformational leadership. They
suggested that transformational leadership processes are likely to be
enhanced in countries that are low on Individualism because most
subordinates in these cultures have high respect and are obedient toward
their leaders.

Individualism/Collectivism and the School Leader

Individualism-collectivism differentiates between cultures in which
individual identity and personal choice are revered and cultures in which a
strong collective identity exists, linking individuals to consistent in-groups
over a lifetime. lndividualistic cultures emphasize values promoting
individual goals, whereas collectivistic cultures emphasize the welfare of the
in-group (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

In highly individualistic cultures, organizational policies and practices
may allow for and expect greater individual initiative, whereas in highly
collectivistic cultures, there may be a greater emphasis on team building. A
work by Bochner and Hesketh (1994) in a large, culturally diverse Australian
bank, found that persons from individualistic cultures reported significantly
less chance of working in a team rather than alone compared to persons
from collectivistic cultures. On this basis, researcher predicts that

administrators from collectivistic cultures would be perceived by their

38

subordinates as promoting team building more than administrators from
individualistic cultures.

Masculinity and the School Leader

Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity dimension distinguishes between
cultures in which assertiveness, challenge, and ambition are highly valued
(so-called masculine cultures) and cultures in which greater emphasis is
placed on cooperation and good working relationships (so-called feminine
cultures). In his work, Hofstede (1991) found that across cultures,
managerial jobs required elements of both assertiveness and nurturance for
effectiveness and thus were ranked in the midrange of jobs in terms of
masculinity. Thus, even though all subjects in the present study will be
administrators, researcher will try to make explicit predictions about the
cultural values of masculinity-femininity and leadership roles, and
relationships will also be tested.

Long-Short Term Orientation and the School Leader

On the long-term side one finds values oriented towards the future,
like thrift (saving) and persistence. On the short-term side one finds values
oriented towards the past and present, like respect for tradition and fulfilling
social obligations. School leader of short-term orientation cultures tend to
value the relative importance of: personal steadiness and stability, saving
face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts
(Hofstede & Bond 1988). In this culture, change can occur more rapidly as

long-term traditions and commitments do not become impediments to

39

change. The researcher will try to make predictions about long-short term
orientation and leadership role.
The Effects of National Culture on the School Organization

Some research explaining the difference between cultures in
administration policies and practices using Hofstede's dimensions has
already been undertaken. Schuler, Jackson, and Jackofsky (1996)
suggested that the obvious differences in management practices that exist
between US. and Mexican companies are rooted in the differences that exist
between these two countries along Hofstede’s dimensions. Sparrow and
Budhwar (1997) used these dimensions to explain why certain employment
practices are used by companies in India. Brown (1996) found support for
hypothesized relationships between Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and
different performance-appraisal practices.

Connected work has also been done using national culture as an
explanatory variable for the acceptance and effectiveness of specific
management approaches. Although not using Hofstede’s dimensions,
Brewster (1994) suggested that US. originated human resource policies and
practices are unacceptable to European countries due partly to cultural
differences between the United States and Europe.

A number of studies have been done on the Chinese culture (Zhu and
Dowling, 1994). These studies explain the stability of certain management
practices and policies used by companies in China that have survived all

social and political changes and revolutions by the nature of Chinese culture,

40

specifically, neo—Confucianism. Using Hofstede's dimensions, Newman and
Nollen (1996) found that merit based rewards were consistent with not only a
high level of masculine culture, but that they were also associated with a high
level of financial performance.

All these studies provide support for the proposition that national
culture is a significant explanatory factor for country differences in
management practices and organizations. They also support the importance
of matching administration practices to a country’s culture because it
conveys cultural awareness and sensitivity; and it conveys expectations of,
and rewards for, employee behavior consistent with ingrained patterns of
acceptable behavior.

Power Distance and the Organization

Hofstede’s concept of power distance is clearly relevant to the study of
organization and leadership because it deals directly with expectations of,
and relationships to, authority. Power distance is defined as the extent to
which there is an acceptance of unequal distribution of power within a
culture. In low-power distance cultures, superior subordinate relations are
theoretically close and less formal in nature; in high-power distance cultures
these relationships are expected to be more distant, hierarchically ordered,
and reserved. High-power distance will indicate a preference for autocratic
administration, whereas low-power distance should be more compatible with

administration consultation.

41

Thus the researcher predicts that administrators from low-power
distance cultures would be perceived by subordinates as exhibiting more
communication behaviors and being more open-minded than administrators
from high-power distance cultures, whereas administrators from high-power
distance cultures would be expected to be perceived as exhibiting more
controlling behaviors than administrators from low-power distance cultures.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Organization

Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which members of a culture
prefer certainty and predictability and find ambiguity stressful. Members of
high-uncertainty avoidance cultures prefer rules and stable jobs with long-
term employers; members of low-uncertainty avoidance cultures may be
more willing to take risks, change employers, and tolerate organizational
ambiguity and change. High-uncertainty avoidance cultures have been
called “tight” because norms are clear, and people are expected to behave
exactly as specified by those norms; “loose” cultures allow more latitude in
behavior (T riandis, 1994). Given the strong theoretical relationship of
perceptions of uncertainty and ambiguity with aspects of decision making
and policy formation (Jackson & Schuler 1995), relationships between
uncertainty avoidance and leadership role in organizations is likely. Leaders
from high-uncertainty avoidance cultures should be more likely to find ways
to exert and keep control (certainty) in their work units. Therefore, the
researcher predicts that administrators from high-uncertainty avoidance

cultures would be perceived by their subordinates as more controlling than

42

administrators from low-uncertainty avoidance cultures. In addition, the
researcher expects administrators from high-uncertainty avoidance cultures
to be perceived as less delegating and less approachable than
administrators from low-uncertainty avoidance cultures.

The Present Study

In the present study, the researcher extends earlier work, and focuses
specifically on explaining how school administrators carry out their
responsibilities. The researcher examines the relationships between school
administration roles and dimensions of national culture. Having insight into
the cultural dynamics used by those who run of Saudi school can be very
helpful in understanding why people act the way they do, and the appropriate
way to respond to those actions.

The researcher began by examining a number of relationships
between Hofstede's cultural dimensions and administration practices
presented in the literature, and based upon theories of Hofstede (1991),
Triandis (1994), Newman and Novell (1996). Although the relationships
between the dimensions of national culture and specific administration
practices examined here are relatively unexplored, Hofstede ( 1980, 1984,
1993), Brewster (1994), and Sparrow (1997) have suggested relationships
between dimensions of national culture and broader statements of how
organizations regard and intend to manage their organizations. Here, the

researcher will move the discussion to another level of specificity by

43

addressing the relationships between dimensions of culture and specific

administration practices.

The study is based upon-and extends-the excellent work of Newman

and Novell (1996), Hofstede (1991), and Triandis (1994). Whereas their

work investigated in general management practices, this investigation

focuses more narrowly on Saudi school leader roles and practices within

Saudi public schools. As with previous studies, this study uses Hofstede's

dimensions of national culture.

From all above descriptions, three sets of critical questions have

emerged:

The first descriptive research question considers whether Hofstede’s
studies regarding cultural dimensions can be replicated in the context
of the school in Saudi Arabia and ask: what is the nature of national
culture which shape Saudi public schools? And how does the
description of Saudi Culture compare to other cultures studies by
Hofstede’s Model?

The second is an exploratory question (incorporated in the descriptive
research question): How do the Saudi school leaders carry out their
organizational and educational responsibilities in their public schools?
The third question: as a consequence of Saudi national culture, to
what extent may or may not Saudi administrators implement modern

bureaucratic and Western style in their organization setting?

44

The purpose of the study then, was to present the results from
exploratory questions of the relationship between Saudi cultural dimensions
and the role of Saudi administrators in the Saudi public schools. No prior
studies have analyzed this phenomenon from Saudi School leaders’
perspectives.

A study of this nature is important to school leaders for a number of
reasons. First, administrators and school leaders who are involved in
education with people may want to obtain a deeper understanding of how
their own value-sets differ from others. Second, knowledge of the different
values, such as perceptions of time, power, and decision making also has
many implications for motivation, and communication. And, third, as
organizations consider expansion into traditional states, their expatriate
administrators may find the results of this study useful for strategic and
negotiation planning. This study seeks to advance our theoretical knowledge
by considering the cultural dimensions, which leads to a comprehensive set
of propositions about School leaders’ roles in Saudi schools.

Summary

In this study the researcher explores a number of relationships
between the cultural dimensions suggested by Hofstede (Power Distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, lndividualism-Collectivism, Masculinity, and Long-
Short Term Orientation) and specific administration roles in a Saudi context.
Previous researchers had suggested a number of relationships between

these cultural dimensions and general administration approaches used by

45

organization. Here, the researcher will add another level of specificity by
analyzing the relationships between Saudi culture dimensions and specific
administration roles like, decision-making, communication, and motivation.
These relationships will be examined in Saudi schools. The results suggest
that national culture would provide as important explanation for the variance

in the utilization of different administration practices in different country.

46

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the relationship
between Saudi national culture and the role of school leaders in public
schools. Specifically, the study will describe national culture in Saudi schools
using Hofstede’s model. Then it was explained how school administrators
carry out their roles in Saudi public schools.

This chapter describes the methods that were used in the present
study. In addition, it presents a brief description of the research site and
sample, and more detailed information on data collection guides, procedures,
and analysis. According to statistical sampling theory, inference about a
population will be valid to the extent that the sample is representative of that
population.

Both the participants and the research setting in this study were
considered in those terms (Brunswick, 1955). The four operational
requirements for data collecting as described by Brewer and Hunter (1989)
include: selecting research sites that are accessible, selecting a sample of
accessible subjects at the site(s), devising and applying measurement
techniques, and lastly, establishing how particular variables are to be

measured.

47

The Participants and Setting

This study was designed to provide a description and explanation of
the relationship between Saudi national culture and the role of school leaders
in public schools as they occur in actual practice. The participants and
setting are described in this section to give a clear picture of site and
participants of the present study. Readers also can determine their own
meanings of the findings and discussion which will be presented in the final
two chapters.

The Sampling Techniques

The researcher used two instruments for gathering the data (a
questionnaire and an in—depth interview), in order to answer the research
questions. Therefore, two sampling techniques were employed, random
sampling for the questionnaire and theoretical sampling for the interview.

. Random Sampling

For the purposes of this study, the population is identified: Saudi
school administrators in public schools in Saudi Arabia. For the
questionnaire the Saudi administrators sample was selected randomly with
cooperation between an investigator and the computer center in the Ministry
of Education. The investigator published the questionnaire (VSM 94) through
the center website. The computer center that has all e-mail addresses of
Saudi schools randomly sent an invitation letter via e-mail to school
administrators to participate on the study and complete the questionnaire on

the website.

48

The sample target was from 150-200 participants. In order to reach
this target, the computer center sent the invitation letter for 300 schools
randomly (150 for girls’ schools and 150 for boys’ schools) by choosing the
odd numbers of the boys” schools list and also from the girls’ schools list
which is available in the computer center. For example from the boys’
schools list, the staff member in the computer center chose from number 1 to
300 ( 1-3-5-7-9-1 1-13-15-17-19-21-23—25-27-29-31- ...... ) and he did the
same for the girls’ school list. All respondents were instructed to rank values
from 1 to 20 in order of their preference. All subjects participated voluntarily
and responses are anonymous. It is assumed that administrators would be
familiar with both administration practices and the questionnaire
methodology.

. Theoretical sampling

For interviewing, the researcher decided on the characteristics of his
informants (length of tenure, male and female principals, in Saudi public
schools, lengths of experience representing different positions in the public
school and districts). The researcher assumed that the experienced
informants have the information, the are interested in national culture effects,
they are totally interested in describing the event and explaining how Saudi
school administrator carry out their roles, and they use their perspectives to
explain the implication of leadership and management theories in their

schools. This required a sampling technique that allow for the explanation to

49

emerge as evidence was gathered. Theoretical sampling was used for this
purpose.

“Theoretical sampling is a method researchers use to discover
categories and their properties and to suggest the interrelationships into a
theory” (Denzin, 1970, p. 106). The researcher used theoretical sampling
because it allowed him to develop the concept of school leader role as a
category, with the various functions of the school leader. He believed that
the process of data collection would generate a theory of school leaders in
Saudi school.

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for

generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes

and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next

and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it

emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the

emerging theory, whether substantive or formal. The initial

decisions for theoretical collection of data are based only on

a general sociological perspective and on a general subject

or problem. The initial decisions are not based on a

preconceived theoretical framework (Glaser and Strauss,

1970,p.105)

Selection Considerations

For the interview, the context and participants were chosen for the
study based on the more pragmatic criteria of access. Hammersicy &
Atkinson (1983) identify three main access issues for qualitative research: 1)
negotiating entry to the site with gatekeepers, 2) maintaining an unobtrusive
presence at the site through appropriate activity, and 3) being trusted by the

subjects. The researcher has ready access to the proposed site and

subjects as he is employed by the Ministry of Education in the role of

50

administrator. The researcher is a Riyadh local school district administrator,
with 16 years’ experience (1982-1998). Site gatekeepers indicated that he
would be allowed to interview participants with their permission and use
information generated by participants for this study. And, finally, the
researcher has reason to suppose that his relationship with participants is
based upon trust and would facilitate a collection of accurate data.

The researcher’s role as interviewer presented a major threat to the
validity of the study. However, this threat is common in qualitative studies
which employ interview methods. As Blumer’s theory (1962) of symbolic
interaction asserts, the potential benefits from working with and among the
participants are well worth the risks to validity.

In most instances, the researcher’s paid role as a helper blended well
with his desire as a researcher to non-judgmentally understand what is going
on from the participants” perspectives.

The Setting

The setting of the study was with school leaders (superintendent,
principals, and administrators) employed in Ministry of Education in Saudi
Arabia. The setting is described by primary characteristics of Saudi school
administration within the structure of public schools. Saudi Arabia is divided,
for the purpose of education, into forty-two educational districts for Male
Education and thirty eight educational districts for Female Education

distributed among 13 regions.

51

Table 1: Educational Districts in Saudi Arabia - 2000

 

 

 

 

Educational
Districts Schools Teachers 8. Staff Students
42 12,229 161,712 2,228,397
Male
38 11,913 173,438 2,313,104
Female
Total
80 24,142 335,150 4,541,501

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ministry of Education, 2000)

Historically, formal primary education began in Saudi Arabia in the
19305. By 1945, the government had initiated an extensive program to
establish schools in the Kingdom. Six years later, in 1951, the country had
226 schools with 29,887 students. In 1954, the Ministry of Education was
established. Today in boys’ education, 12,229 schools and 161,712 teachers
and staff serve 2,228,397 students. In girls’ education; 11,913 schools and
173,438 teachers and staff serve 2,313,104 students. (Ministry of Education,
2000). Riyadh district is the biggest district in Saudi Arabia and has 1170
schools and 23,694 teachers who serve 354,751 students.

The Research Questions

The researcher believed it was necessary and desirable to know and
determine the national culture of the Saudi public school as a way to
understand how school administrators carry out their roles. It was necessary

also to experience the implication of modern styles on their public schools.

52

The researcher used three basic exploratory questions to guide his
study and for his investigation. These were:

0 How does a select set of Saudi administrators describe their
culture? And how does their description of Saudi national
culture compare to other cultures studied by Hofstede’s Model?

0 Relative to the elements illustrated in their description of their
culture, how do they carry out their organizational and
educational roles?

o In constructing their roles and in light of what they described as
Saudi culture, to what extent do Saudi administrators
implement the modern bureaucratic (Western style), on their
organizational responsibilities?

The first area of questioning guided the questionnaire. The second
and third areas guided the interviews. More details are presented in the next
sections.

Data Collection Guides and Procedures

In this study, data collection is intertwined with analysis. Two methods
were used for gathering the data in which the researcher poses questions to
people in a way designed to ascertain and explore their views on a given
subject in their own terms and framework of understanding.

In order to respond appropriately to the insights that emerged from the
data, adjustments were made to data collection and analysis tools, and the

research questions and conceptual framework were revised over the course

53

of the study to establish the trustworthiness of this study. The data collection
processes include the creation of an audit trail documenting these changes.

Instruments

“Descriptive research studies are designed to obtain information
concerning the current status of phenomena” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh,
1985, p. 322). These researchers are directed toward determining the nature
of a situation, as it exists at the time of the study. Therefore, in this study the
best methods for gathering the data and to answer the research questions
were questionnaire and in-person interviewing to describe Saudi national
culture and explore the school administrators’ views on their roles in schools
in a framework of understanding.

0 A Questionnaire

The first instrument was the Value Survey Module (VSM 94). The
VSM-94 consisted of 20 content and 5 socio—demographic questions. All 20
content questions had a 5-point structure, eg. range from 1= “of the utmost
importance” to 5= “of very little to no importance.” The Power Distance Index
(PDI) was tapped with only 4 questions, all evaluating working relationships
between subordinates and superiors: having good relationships with
superiors, being consulted by superiors, being afraid to express
disagreement with superiors, and working in a place where subordinates
have more than one superior. For the Individualism Index (IDV) another 4
questions were used: time for personal and family life, good working

conditions, security of employment, and adventure in the job. The

54

Masculinity Index (MAS) was also based on 4 questions that drew on
cooperation at work, advancement opportunities, interpersonal trust, and
personal accountability for failure in life. The Uncertainty Avoidance Index
(UAI) made use of 4 other questions addressing anxiety at work, the
evaluation of indeterminate management, the harrnfulness of competition
between workers, and compliance to work rules. Finally, Long Term
Orientation (LTO) consisted of 4 questions on the importance of personal
stability, thrift, persistence or perseverance, and respect for tradition.

The VSM94 evolved from the VSM80 and VSM82 that were both
developed using over 100,000 cases (Hofstede, 1994). The identification of
the LTO dimension (Bond, 1987), required the development of an additional
subscale. This dimension was included for the first time in the VSM 94.

Permission from the Institute for Research on Intercultural
Cooperation, at Tilborg University in The Netherlands, was obtained to use
the VSM94 within the domain of this study. The English-language
questionnaire was professionally translated to Arabic. The translated
questionnaire was reviewed by a professional translator with significant
experience working for the Saudi government to ensure that the terminology
corresponded to that used by the target population. Data was collected in
Spring 2002 and all subjects participated voluntarily.

(See VSM 94 questionnaire in appendix A)

55

0 An in-Depth Interview

The second instrument was an in-depth interview which serves the
study to obtain in-depth views regarding school leaders’ potential function.
Interviews are probably the most widely used technique for collecting data.
They permit the interviewer to ask the respondent direct questions. Further
probing and clarification is, therefore, possible as the interview proceeds.
This flexibility is inevitable for gaining private views and feelings about the
district and for exploring new issues that emerge during the interview.

Interviews as an instrument measure attitudes that have been used to
understand human behavior. Predetennined answers are written in the
researcher’s terms. It is assumed that these answers encompass the range
of respondents” answers. As qualitative research, the researcher is the
instrument. The data are recorded through field notes from interviews and
the transcripts from those interviews. As opposed to being numeric, the data
are descriptive. The instrument can be flexible to accommodate a diverse
group of respondents as well as a broader range of responses. No
participant’s experience would fall outside a preordained behavioral
continuum. Subtleties in individual experience can be recorded and
understood.

The school leader’s responses were analyzed for the emergence of
common themes or findings. The researcher tried to capture the mood and

perspective of school leaders as they worked in the schools and districts.

56

The interview data produced the thick description advocated by Geertz
(1973)

According to Hammersley and Atkinson (1983), interviews are
intended to gather descriptive data in the participant’s own words for two
purposes: first, to obtain information on particular phenomena, which can be
gathered as participants describe the situation and their own actions; and
second, for indications of the participant’s perspective on the phenomena
being studied. For the purpose of this study, it is important that interviews
are conducted not only to gather information on the school leader role, but
also to better understand the participants” viewpoints on how the roles of
school leaders operate in Saudi public schools.

In addition, Bogdan and Biklen (1998) define an interview as “a
purposeful conversation, usually between two people but sometimes
involving more that is directed by one in order to get information” (p.135).
This definition is purposefully broad to allow for data collection across a wide
selection of interviewing situations. Interviews can be conducted with one or
many participants, be scheduled or occur spontaneously, continue over a
short or long period of time, in informal or formal situations depending upon
what is available within the context and suits the purposes of the study.

Development of the Interview Questions

The interview guide was composed of questions that have been
adapted and evolved from Hofstede’s Model. The interview questions were

developing in three steps. First, it was developed in English: questions were

57

adopted from Hofstede's theory to explain and explore the organizational
roles. It also included questions about the respondents” perception of time,
current job status, education, and job experience etc. Second, the interview
protocol was back-translated to Arabic. Third, the administrators and
participants in the Saudi schools and districts were interviewed.

The researcher followed some rules which have been compiled from
several sources for developing and conducting the interview questions
(Goetz and LeCompte, 1980 & Measor, 1985). First, the researcher framed
the same question in different time dimensions and posed questions in
language that is clear and meaningful to the subject. Second, during the
exploratory phase of this study, the researcher sometimes used deliberately
ambiguous questions to increase response variability and determine
respondent meanings and interpretations without cueing the subject. Third,
the researcher avoided leading questions. However, in some cases a
leading question was asked that contained a deliberate assumption designed
to provoke a subject reaction. Fourth, the researcher asked questions that
contained only a single idea. (See the INTERVIEW GUIDE in Appendix 8)
Fifth, the researcher used open-ended questions, as these elicit richer
qualitative responses. Sixth, effective probing and curiosity was necessary
to produce more complete information. Probes can be used for getting
further elaboration, explanation, clarification, and completion of detail.
Seventh, the interviewer tried to talk less than the respondent. The

researcher saved complex or controversial questions for the latter part of the

58

interview. Eighth, the researcher pilot-tested the interview in order to
improved questions, and develops a sequence that made sense and
maintained interest. Ninth, the researcher used a conversational mode in the
interview, that is, a mode similar to everyday conversation. This mode
communicates empathy, encouragement, and understanding and obtains
trust and a relaxed atmosphere.

(See the INTER VIEW GUIDE in Appendix B)

Conducting the Interviews

In order to study the in-depth perceptions of school leaders
concerning their role it was necessary to get them to talk at length and in
detail about their performance in school districts and what are they doing.
The researcher sought to learn how they feel about their job, their
responsibilities, and their role.

After developing interview questions, selecting the schools, and
participating administrators in each school and district, administrators were
asked by phone and by e-mail letters supported by the Ministry of Education
to participate in the study. After sending and showing them the permeation
of the study, and explaining to them the goal of the study, the researcher
asked them to participate in the present study and asked them for their
consent to record phone to phone in-depth interviews. Finally, the
researcher sent them the consent form to sign. Twenty informants were

chosen to participate in the present study because the researcher believes

59

that these numbers were necessary to explore the situation and explain the
event within Saudi school culture.
(See the CONSENT FORM in Appendix C).

After administrator agreed, the researcher set up an appointment for a
phone conversation. Administrators who refused to participate in the study
were omitted from the list, and the researcher select another administrator
from the same school category (elementary and high school) and from the
same district. Data were collected in Summer 2002, and all subjects
participated voluntarily.

After this stage, the researcher sent a letter to each informant to thank
him/her for participating and to confirm confidentiality. This letter included
the questions that the interviewee could think about and jot answers to in
preparation for our phone conversation.( See the Letter in Appendix F).

The interviews were conducted in an atmosphere where they would
feel most comfortable to start the phone conversation. The researcher was
looking for some degree of privacy and a relaxed atmosphere, which is very
important to accomplish the phone interview. The interviews were started
with a brief explanation of the purpose of the interviews. Thereafter, the
interviewee was invited to talk about national culture and describe what a
Saudi school leader is like, what elements of cultural values influence the
administrator’s role, and how these values matter.

The researcher began the interviews with several “icebreaker’”

questions concerning the respondents’ administrative background and a

60

description of their schools and district in terms of size, geography, and
demographics. The next set of questions asked how and why they became a
school administrator, their previous expectations of the role, their following
experiences, the influences, and stress on them and the source of those
stresses.

The next series of questions focused on how they carry out their
responsibilities in school in the light of their national culture and how this
affected school and people practices. The questions were to explain how
they deal with social inequality (Power Distance), the degree of integration of
individuals within groups (lndividualism-Collectivism), the division of social
roles between women and men (Femininity-Masculinity), the tolerance for the
unknown (Uncertainty Avoidance), and the trade-off between long-term and
short-term gratification of needs (Long-Term Orientation).

(See the Interview Questions Guide in Appendix B).

During the interview the researcher asked follow-up questions, mixing
up the order of questions, or differing from the list of questions to pursue
responses that might enrich the study. Interviews took approximately one
hour to complete. The interviews were recorded on audio tape with a code
not the interviewee”s name. Their responses were transcribed in an accurate
and confidential manner. After that occurred, the tapes were destroyed
directly.

The taped interviews were transcribed and translated by the

researcher, and all participants received a copy of their interview by fax and

61

e-mail. Some corrections noted by the participants were made. The
transcribed interviews were analyzed to extract the data used for findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of this study.

Technique of Interviewing

Through the first two interviews, different subject matter questions
were asked to school leaders as a first step to evaluate the interview
questions. This was not including follow-up questions which are often
necessary to explore a particular subject. Several of those early questions
were discontinued in the following interviews, either because they showed to
be too general or vague, too complex, or because they were incorporated
into questions that produced more productive responses. The researcher
was developing new questions to cover the core concepts of national culture
and the school leader’s role. These questions were supplemented previous
questions for the last 18 interviews.

An individual voice recording was used for recording the interviews
with the school administrators. Each interview was recorded on a tape and
labeled with the name or number of the school administrator and date of the
interview. Thus, if the researcher found that he needed further information or
some missing data, he could easily contact the person for re-recording of the
missing data.

The researcher emphasizes that the interview was not seeking for the
true attitude or sentiment, he recognizes that informants can and do hold

conflicting sentiments at one time and they hold varying sentiments

62

according to the situations in which they find themselves. As Roethlisberger
and Dickson long ago pointed out, the interview itself is a social situation,
thus, the researcher considered how this situation could influence the
expression of sentiments and the reporting of events (Dean & Whyte, 1958).

The researcher will not ask himself, “How do I know if the informant is
telling the truth?” Instead, the researcher will ask, “What do the inforrnant’s
statements reveal about his or her feelings and perceptions, and what
inferences can be made from them about the actual environment or events
he or she has experienced?”

The Approach to Analysis

Two approaches of analysis are presented to analyze the results of
these research instruments. Basically, the goal of quantitative research is to
discover the facts of human behavior by testing theories in controlled
environments, in order to predict future behavior or to “test accuracy of
beliefs on which laws and design principles have been based” (Parsons, et
al, 1994). Prediction, control, and hypothesis-testing are all goals of
quantitative investigations (Bogdan and Biklen 1998).

Quantitative analysis is guided by a priori questions. Often the data
were analyzed using some form of statistical test. Conclusions are reached
deductively. Although there are many techniques used in qualitative
analysis, they have one process in common. Unlike quantitative methods,
where the analysis occurs at the end of the study after all the data have been

collected, in qualitative research the analysis occurs simultaneously with the

63

data collection. In this manner, each new set of data informs the collection of
the next set. This constant comparative method consists of a cyclical
process gathering of data, noticing trends or recurring themes that may
become categories (analysis), collecting more data with these categories in
mind, more analysis, etc. Eventually, once all the data are collected set
categories have emerged so that a final analysis can begin.

0 The Analysis of the Questionnaire

This study recalculated the indices for Saudi administrators using the
VSM94 formulae as given by Hofstede. These formulae are listed in Table 2.
The results calculated from the survey data were then compared with
Hofstede's results. The twenty content questions allow calculating index
scores on five dimensions of national value systems, as components of
national cultures: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty
Avoidance, and Long-Short Term Orientation.

All content questions are scored on five-point scales (1-2-3-4-5). Index
scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for national or
regional samples of respondents. This scale includes twenty content
questions and six demographic questions. Hofstede (1980, 1994)
determined the content question groupings based on covariance measures.
The questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together.

All of the content questions are scored on a 5-point Likert scale

(Hofstede, 1994). Index scores are derived from the mean scores on the

64

questions for national or regional samples of respondents. (See the actual
index formulae which summarized in table 2 ).

Using the SPSS for Windows 10 software package, the researcher
compared descriptive statistics of the data collected. The program also
provided and calculated mean scores on five-point scales, the mean scores
for each question help to implement the formula. The formula for index
calculation is as follows:

Table 2: The Formula for Index Calculation

 

 

 

 

 

PDI = - 35[m3] + 35[m6] + 25[m14] - 20[m17] - 20
LTO = 45[m9] - 30[m10] - 35[m11] + 15[m12] + 67
UAI = 25[m13] + 20[m16] - 50[m18] - 15[m19] + 120
MAS = 60[m5] - 20[m7] + 20[m15] - 70[m20] + 100
IDV = - 50[m1] + 30[m2] + 20[m4] - 25[m8] + 130

 

 

 

Where -35[m3] is defined as -35 times the mean value of survey question 3.

. The Analysis of the Interview

Qualitative research is flexible in its design and methods so that data
collection and analysis procedures do not limit what can be understood from
the participants and the context. However, this flexibility can create a great
deal of concern for the qualitative researcher because there is no prescriptive
model to be followed for analyzing the data. Instead, data intend to be
analyzed in a way that results in an accurate picture of the phenomena of
interest. The data analysis procedure in this study was drawn from Lincoln

and Guba (1985), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Tesch (1990).

65

Marshall and Rossman (1999) identify major characteristics of data
analysis:

Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure,

and meaning to the mass of collected data. It is a messy,

ambiguous, time-consuming, creative, and fascinating

process. It does not proceed in a linear fashion; it is not

neat. Qualitative data analysis is a search for general

statements about relationships among categories of data;

it builds grounded theory (p.112).

Tesch (1990) performed a comprehensive review of analysis
descriptions of a wide variety of types of qualitative research and identified
ten principles and practices of qualitative analysis:

1. Analysis is not the last phase in the research process; it is concunent with
data collection or cyclic.

2. The analysis process is systematic and comprehensive, but not rigid.

3. Attending to data includes a reflective activity that results in a set of
analytical notes that guide the process.

4. Data are “segmented, ’” i.e., divided into relevant and meaningful “units. ”
5. The data segments are categorized according to an organizing system
that is predominantly derived from the data themselves.

6. The main intellectual tool is comparison.

7. Categories for sorting segments are tentative and preliminary in the
beginning; they remain flexible.

8. Manipulating qualitative data is an eclectic activity; there is no one “right”
way.

9. The procedures are neither “scientific” nor “mechanistic.”

66

10. The result of the analysis is some higher-level synthesis (pp. 95-9 7)

These principles and practices were applied in the analysis of this
study. As described in the data collection section, great care was taken in
how data were collected. This helped establish the honesty of the study and
to facilitate analysis.

The data collection and analysis processes were documented, which
consists of all original forms of data, the word processed data, index cards
created for the sorting process, and the final case report as represented by
this dissertation. Throughout the study, notes from interviews were
processed into the computer. Reflective journal entries and theory memos
were composed on the computer. As the data base grew, a system of files
was developed. First, each source of data was kept in its own file. There
were files for each of the interview sessions, and notes on developing theory.
Second, data sources were also combined to form files for individual
participants. These individual files contained copies of documents by and
about the participant, transcriptions of all interviews conducted with the
participant, and reflective notes generated by the investigator relating to the
individual. This dual filing system facilitated the analysis process as
information was easily retrieved and reviewed.

When the empirical data were collected, a complementing literature
study was realized and reviewed in order to broaden the list of factors that
could have incidence on the findings, then, the thesis structure was revised,

and some changes were made. Data were grouped into clusters by topic,

67

according to the new outline structure. In this process, data which are
irrelevant were put in a “trash category.” The next step was to enter the raw
data into the thesis. When this was done, further screening was undertaken.

As a qualitative technique, the findings were not tabulated. Instead,
representative quotes and summarizing descriptions of the findings were
prepared. The analysis was naturally relying on the complete empirical base.
Next, national cultural dimensions were linked to the findings, and
relationships among factors and concepts were established. The last step
was to make the logic as clear-cut as possible. This work was concerned
with making the thesis accessible, to make it focused and easy to read.
Reliability and Validity

The questionnaire (cultural values) was composed of questions drawn
from Hofstede’s cultural survey. The Hofstede measures are generally
accepted as the best test of cultural dimensions; the reliability and validity of
this tool are usually not questioned. What is clear is that the model of
Hofstede has been validated against more data banks than other models in
existence. In other words, the validity and therefore the reliability of the
model is the strongest. Few practitioners may not always perceive this as a
positive aspect. However, at the same time no other model has been
validated against as many outside measures as the 5-D model. No other
model allows the researchers to categorize all kinds of human phenomena

as much as the 5-D model.

68

In the interview, as a qualitative method to collect the data and
analysis, processes were guided by methods for establishing trustworthiness.
First, credibility refers to the degree to which the reader can trust the study
as a “truthful” representation of the phenomena of interest. In this study, the
techniques of triangulation and member checks were used to establish
credibility. Triangulation was accomplished by comparing data collected
from different method (questionnaire finding). Member checks in which
participants responded to what was being discovered occurred throughout
the study.

Second, transferability helps the reader determine how applicable the
findings of a particular study may be to another context or group of subjects.
In the interview part of this study, this was accomplished by providing "thick
description,” and synopses to describe both the phenomena of interest and
the context and subjects.

Third, dependability refers to the likelihood that the study is consistent,
in other words, similar findings would be generated from similar respondents
in similar context. Establishing dependability for qualitative method differs
from establishing reliability in quantitative method because the qualitative
approach assumes that respondents and context are constantly changing,
therefore, no study can be repeated exactly. Dependability was addressed in
this study by leaving a data trail which could be used to conduct an inquiry

audit of both the processes and products of the study.

69

Fourth, confirmability which refers to the degree to which a study’s
finding are the results of the participants and the context and not influenced
by the researcher’s biases. Confirmability was established in this study
through confirmability audits and triangulation. The researcher maintained a
data trail which could be closely examined to determine where and how
biases were introduced. Portions of the data were reviewed by persons not
involved in the study to see if they concurred with the researcher’s insights.

Triangulation, mentioned above as the collection of data from multiple
sources through multiple methods to establish credibility, also operated as a
control on bias. The example is the comparison of the researcher’s
perceptions of the participants and the results of the survey. The design and
implementation of the interview in the present study are presented in the
basis of this chapter.

Summary

An overview of the research design and methodology was presented
in this chapter. A description of approaches as well as a discussion of its
suitability to the purpose of the study was presented. A number of
techniques employed in methodology to establish the honesty of the study
were discussed. The participants, context, data collection, and analysis
procedures were also described. The methods described in this part
intended to accomplish this study’s purpose of describing and explaining the
relationship between Saudi national culture and school leaders’ roles in

Saudi public schools.

70

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative roles in
the Saudi public schools. Specifically, the study describes national culture in
Saudi schools using Hofstede’s model, and relative to the description of
Saudi national culture, it explains how school administrators carry out their
organizational and educational roles.

This chapter presents the results of data collected of both quantitative
and qualitative analyses in a survey and the interviews among Saudi school
administrators. Section one summarizes the responses to the Hofstede’s
survey and the descriptive statistics regarding Saudi national culture. Section
two summarizes the results of the interviews with school administrators
regarding how they carry out their organizational and educational roles in the
light of their national culture.

Quantitative Data Analysis and Results

To verify the presence or absence of cultural difference, a quantitative
analysis for national culture (Value Survey Module-94; Hofstede, 1994) was
used to measure and describe the cultural dimensions of Power Distance,
Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Collectivism, and Long Term Orientation.
Representatives of the administration groups within Saudi schools were

assessed in this way.

71

Findings of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire responses were codified. The dependent variables
were the scores on the five dimensions, the independent variable was the
Saudi school administrators, and the covariates were sex, age, education,
and job occupation. Sex and job occupation were chosen as covariates
because previous research has found scores on the dimensions to be related
to sex and occupation (Hofstede, 1991). A total of three hundred invitations
were e-mailed to school administrators in Saudi public schools to participate
in Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM 94), which was published on the
website of the computer center in the Ministry of Education for three weeks.
(See VSM 94 questionnaire in Appendix A).

One hundred eighty-nine (189) school administrators visited the site
and responded to the survey. Returned surveys were examined for
completeness, and incomplete questionnaires were discarded. Among the

189 completed questionnaires, 180 were usable responses.

Table 3: Survey Response and Rates

 

 

Number of Response Responses

participates Returned completed
Invited

N % N %

300 189 63% 180 95.2%

 

 

 

 

 

72

Descriptive Statistics

Using the SPSS for Windows 10 software package, the researcher
compared descriptive statistics of the data collected. In the data editing
portion, prior to statistical analysis, all of the variables were examined for
accuracy of data entry using frequency analysis. There were no out-of-range
values within the data set. Most procedures in SPSS allow the user to
exclude missing cases either pairwise or listwise, Iistwise deletion is shown
on Table 5. Painivise deletion was used whenever possible to maximize the
number of values available for analysis. Negatively worded scale items were
re-coded within SPSS.

Univariate outliers are cases with an extreme value on one variable.
On examination of the box plots for each dependent variable, no extreme
cases were noted. This suggests the absence of univariate outliers
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Multivariate outliers are cases with an unusual
combination of scores on two or more variables (Tabachnick and F idell,
1996). The discriminate function analysis was computed to identify
multivariate outliers. Using this data set, Table 0.4 in Tabachnick and Fidell
(1989) indicated a value of p = 0.001, x’(9) equals 27.877. None of the cases
in this study had values exceeding 27.877. This inferred the absence of any

multivariate outliers within the survey.

73

Results

The results of the VSM 94 are presented in this section started with 4
socio-demographic questions (characteristics of respondents) and the five
dimensions of Hofstede Model which consists of 20 questions.
Characteristics of Individual Respondents

The individual characteristics were reviewed for potential distribution
anomalies, which would necessitate transformation of survey data.
The same individual characteristics were reviewed using survey data in this
section. The characteristics under review are listed below: 1) Gender, 2)
Education, 3) Age, and 4) Job occupation.
Gender

Survey reported 81 of respondents were male and 99 were female.
There is no apparent contextual reason for the increase in female

respondents and once again it was a random sample of employees.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Respondents to VSM 94

 

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent
Male 81 45%
GENDER
Female 99 55%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 illustrates the gender percentage which is 45% of
respondents were male and 55% were female. This represented a 10%

increase in female respondents.

74

Figure 3: Gender Demographics from VSM 94

60

 

30l

20I

 

 

   

Percent

male female

Gender

Education

Considering the level of education attained by all the participants, 130
of them hold Bachelor degrees while 24 hold Master degrees and 9 were

Ph.D.s. Three-year College graduates were 17 of all participants.

Table 5: Education of Respondents to VSM 94

EDUCATION

 

75

Considering the percentage of level of education reached by all the
participants, 72.2 % of them hold bachelor’s degrees while 18.3 % hold post
graduate degrees (Master or PhD). Three-year college graduates make up
9.4% of all participants. Figure 4 illustrates the level of education among the
participants. The overall survey weighted mean, for education in the survey,

was bachelor.

Figure 4: Level of Education VSM 94

 

 

 

Count

 

Three-year College Nlaster Other
Bachelor Doctorate

Educafion

Age

The average age of all the respondents is about 35-39 years, as
shown on Table 6. In addition, the data from Saudis in the survey did not

display unusually young participants. The influence of age on respondent

76

participation may be worthy of exploration, but falls outside the scope of this

study.

Table 6: Age of Respondents To VSM 94

 

The numbers of ages for all participants are given in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Age Findings VSM 94

40

20

Count

 

 

20-24 30-34 40—49 60 and over
25-29 35—39 50-59

Age

77

Job Occupation

Among the participants, 24% are school principals, 30% are assistant
principals, 25% are supervisors, and 11.7% are either superintendents or

deputy superintendents.

Table 7: Job occupation of Respondents to VSM 94

JOB
OCCUPATION

 

Figure 6 also illustrates the numbers of job occupation. Supervisors,
school principal, and assistant principal were the most participants in this

study.

Figure 6: Job Occupation VSM 94
50

 

4o-

30-

20I

 

 

Count

 

Job Occupation

As found in the Survey, the age distributions among participants
approximated a normal distribution. Normality was assessed using both

graphical and statistical tests (Hair et al., 1998, Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).

More descriptive statistics of respondents to the questionnaire are
presented in Appendix F, such as the cross-tabulation between age and sex,

age and education, sex and education, and between sex and job title.

The Description of Saudi National Culture

In the following section, the findings of the first descriptive question in
the present study are presented and analyzed. The question was:

How do a select set of Saudi Administrators describe their culture? And
how does their description of Saudi Culture compare to other cultures
studies by Hofstede’s Model?

The question is answered from the data gained from the survey. The
result for each dimension of five dimensions was calculated using the (VSM
94) formulae as given by Hofstede. These formulae and the results are
presented in next section. The results calculated from the survey data were
then compared with Hofstede’s results. The twenty content questions allow
calculating index scores within the five dimensions of national value systems
as components of national cultures: Power Distance, Individualism,
Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-fem: Orientation.

The VSM-94 consists of 20 content and 4 socio-demographic

questions. All 20 content questions have a 5-point structure, eg. range from

79

1=‘of the utmost importance” to 5=‘of very little to no importance’. Index
scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for national or
regional samples of respondents. This scale includes twenty content
questions and six demographic questions. Hofstede (1980, 1994) determined
the content question groupings based on covariance measures. The
questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together.

Using the SPSS for Windows 10 software package, the researcher
compared descriptive statistics of the data collected. The program also
provided and calculated mean scores on five-point scales, the mean scores
for each question help to implement the formulas. The formulas for index
calculation are as follows:

Power Distance Index (PDI)

Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful
members of institutions and organizations within a society expect and accept
that power is distributed unequally.

The Power Distance Index (PDI) is tapped with only 4 questions, all
evaluating working relationships between subordinates and superiors:

c Having good relationships with superiors
. Being consulted by superiors
. Being afraid to express disagreement with superiors

. Working in a place where subordinates have more than one superior.

8O

Table 8 illustrates the results of 4 questions which represent Power
Distance Index (PDI).

Table 8: Mean of PDI

 

 

 

 

 

Questions N Minimum Maximum Mean
3 Work relationships 180 1.00 4.00 1 .6500
6 Consulted 180 1 .00 5.00 2.7333
14 Disagreement 180 1 .00 5.00 3.2333
17 Two bosses 1 80 1 .00 5.00 1 .7000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first question of PDI (Q. 3 in the survey) was: “having a good
working relationship with the direct superior” the responses indicate that 83%
of the participants felt that it is very imprtant. The second question of PDI (Q.
6 in the survey) was: “being consulted by your direct superior in his/her
decisions” 71% saw that it is very important. The third question of PDI (Q14
in the survey) was: “how frequently, in your experience, are subordinates
afraid to express disagreement with their superiors?” the results were: 49%
of participants answered: some times, 32% answered: frequently. The fourth
question in PDI (Q17 in the survey) was: “An organization structure in which
certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all cost" 61% of
participants agreed and 12% disagreed.

The index formula of Power Distance is:
PDI = —35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) -20m(17) -20
(In which m(03) is the mean score for question 03, etc.)
The index normally have a value between 0 (small Power Distance)
and 100 (large Power Distance), but values below 0 and above 100 are

technically possible. In the present study, the result for Saudi administrators

81

in school was (64), this places Saudis relatively at the high of the power
distance. The PDI results were highly significant, with Saudis. Hofstede
(1981) identified a highly significant relationship between PDI and the
balance of power in government. Countries where a balance of power exists,
achieved lower PDI values.

Figure 7: Findings of PDI

PDI

3.5

 

 

 

 

Mean

Work relationships Disagreement
Consulted Two bosses

Long-term Orientation Index (LTO)

Long-term Orientation is the opposite of Short-term Orientation. Long-
terrn Orientation stands for a society fostering virtues oriented towards future
rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Short-term orientation stands
for a society fostering virtues related to the past and present, in particular

respect for tradition, preservation of “face", and fulfilling social obligations.

82

Long Term Orientation (LTO) consists of 4 questions on:

o The importance of personal stability

0 Thrift

. Persistence or perseverance, and

0 Respect for tradition.

Table 9 illustrates the results of 4 questions which represent Long-

term Orientation Index (LTO).

Table 9: Mean of LTO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions N Minimum Maximum Mean
9 Stability 180 1.00 5.00 1.6667
10 Thrift 180 1.00 5.00 2.411 1
1 1 Persistence 180 1 .00 5.00 2.0556
12 Tradition 180 1.00 5.00 1.9944

 

The first question of LTO (Q. 9 in the survey) was: “In your private life,
how important is each of the following to you: Personal steadiness and
stability” the responses indicate that 84% of the participants believed that it
is very imprtant. The second question of LTO (Q. 10 in the survey) was:

“ Thrift”, 55% of the participants believed that it is very important. The third
question of LTO (Q11 in the survey) was: “Persistence (perseverance) ’”, the
results were: 71 % said it is very important. The fourth question in LTO (0.12

in the survey) was: “Respect for tradition”, 71 % said it is very imprtant.

The index formula of Long-term Orientation is:

83

LTO = +45m(09) -30m(10) -35m(11) +15m(12) +67

 

The index will normally have a value between 0 (very short-term
oriented) and 100 (very long-term oriented), but values below 0 and above
100 are technically possible. In this study the score for Saudi Arabia was
(27), which places it on relatively the short-term orientation.

Figure 8: Findings of LTO
LTO

 

22‘

 

 

 

Mean

Stability Thrift Persistence Tradition

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members
of institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain,
unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations.

The Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) makes use of 4 other
questions addressing:

. Anxiety at work

. The evaluation of indeterminate management

84

o The harrnfulness of competition between workers, and
. Compliance to work rules.
Table 10 illustrates the results of 4 questions which represent
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI).

Table 10: Mean of UAI

 

 

 

 

 

Questions N
Minimum Maximum Mean
13 Tense at work 180 1.00 5.00 3.0333
16 Good magger 180 1.00 5.00 3.2944
18 Competition 180 1 .00 5.00 3.2611
19 Rules 180 1 .00 5.00 2.4500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first question of UAI (Q. 13 in the survey) was: “How often do you
feel nervous or tense at work?” The responses indicate that 63% of the
particapants felt tense at work some times, while 17% felt seldom that. The
second question of UAI (Q. 16 in the survey) was: “what extent do you agree
or disagree with each of the following statements: One can be a good
manager without having precise answers to mostquestions that subordinates
may raise about their work” 35% agreed while 55% disagreed. The third
question of UAI (0.18 in the survey) was: “Competition between employees
usually does more harm than good’ 60% disagreed while 26% agreed. The
fourth question in UAI (0.19 in the survey) was: “A school’s or organization's
rules should not be broken -not even when the employee thinks it is in the
school's best interest’ 56% agreed while 40% disagreed.

The index formula of Uncertainty Avoidance is:

UAI = +25m(13) +20m(16) -50m(18) -15m(19) +120

85

The index will normally have a value between 0 (weak Uncertainty
Avoidance) and 100 (strong Uncertainty Avoidance), but values below 0 and
above 100 are technically possible.

UAI achieved significance in the survey, indicating that the research
result for Saudi Arabia was (61), which places Saudis firmly among high

uncertainty avoiders.

Figure 9: Findings of UAI
UAI

3.4

 

 

 

 

Mean

Tense at work Copmpetition
Good manager Rules

Masculinity Index (MAS)

Masculinity is the opposite of Femininity. Masculinity stands for a
society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to
be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed

to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity

86

stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: both men and
women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of

life.

The Masculinity Index (MAS) is also based on 4 questions that draw
on:
. Cooperation at work
. Advancement opportunities
. Interpersonal trust and
0 Personal accountability for failure in life.
Table 11 illustrates the results of 4 questions which represent
Masculinity Index (MAS).

Table 11: Mean of MAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions N Minimum Maximum Mean
5 Cooperation 1 80 1 .00 5.00 1.9000
7 Opportunity 180 1 .00 5.00 2.1056
1 5 Trust 180 1 .00 5.00 3.4056
20 Failing 180 1.00 5.00 2.8944

 

 

The first question of MAS (Q. 5 in the survey) was: “Work with people
who cooperate well with one another” 69% of the paricipants felt that it is
very importent. The second question of MAS (Q. 7 in the survey) was: “Have
an opportunity for advancement to higher Ieveljobs” 66% said that it is very
imortant while 15% said it is very Iittel imprtance or no important. The third
question of MAS (Q15 in the survey) was: “Most people can be trusted”

56% disagreed while 24% agreed. The fourth question in MAS (0.20 in the

87

survey) was: “ When people have failed in life it is often their own fault” 43%
agreed while 36% disagreed.

The index formula of Masculinity is:
MAS = +60m(05) —20m(07) +20m(15) —70m(20) +100

The index will normally have a value between 0 (strongly feminine)
and 100 (strongly masculine), but values below 0 and above 100 are
technically possible.

The score for Saudi Arabia as a result from this formula was (37), which
places it relatively on the “feminine" side
Figure 10: Findings of MAS

MAS

3.5

 

3.0l

2.5I

2.0-

 

 

 

Mean

Cooperation Opportunity Trust Failing

Individualism Index (IDV)
Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism. Individualism stands for a

society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected

88

to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only.
Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are
integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime
continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
For the Individualism Index (IDV) another 4 questions are used:
. Time for personal and family life
. Good working conditions
a Security of employment
. And adventure in the job.
Table 12 illustrates the results of 4 questions which represent

Individualism Index (IDV).

Table 12: Mean of IDV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions N Minimum Maximum Mean
1 Time for family 180 1 .00 5.00 2.2500
2 Working conditions 180 1.00 4.00 1.8111
4 Security 180 1 .00 5.00 1 .71 67
8 Adventure 180 1 .00 5.00 2.4778

 

 

The first question of IDV (Q. 1 in the survey) was: “Have sufficient
time for your personal or family life” 68% of paricipants felt that time for their
personal or family is very importent. The second question of IDV (Q. 2 in the
survey) was: “Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and
lighting, adequate work space, etc.) ” 75% said that is very imortant while
10% said that is very littel imprtance or no important. The third question of

IDV (0.4 in the survey) was: “Have security of employment” 78% said that

89

having security of employment is very imprtant. The fourth question in IDV
(0.8 in the survey) was: Have an element of variety and adventure in the
job, 53% said that is very impotant.

The index formula of the Individualism is:

IDV = —50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) —25m(08) +130

(In which m(01) is the mean score for question 01, etc. ). The index will
normally have a value between 0 (strongly collectivist) and 100 (strongly
individualist), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.

The IDV index results were statistically significant. The result for Saudi

Arabia was relatively towards the collectivistic side (44).

Figure 11: Findings of IDV
IDV

2.6

 

2.4

2.2-

 

 

Mean

 

Time for family Security
Working condiatlons Adventure

90

The mean and standard deviation of all survey questions is illustrated

and in Table 13.

Table 13: A Summary of Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q Questions N Minimu Maximu Mean Standard
NO. m m Deviation
1 Time for family 180 1 .00 5.00 2.2500 1.0825
2 Working conditions 180 1 .00 4.00 1.8111 1.0182
3 Work relationships 180 1.00 4.00 1 .6500 .9482
4 Security 180 1.00 5.00 1 .7167 1 .0846
5 Cooperation 180 1.00 5.00 1.9000 1 .1 192
6 Consulted 180 1.00 5.00 2.7333 1 .0496
7 Opportunity 180 1.00 5.00 2.1056 1.2395
8 Adventure 180 1.00 5.00 2.4778 1 .221 1
9 Stability 180 1.00 5.00 1.6667 1.1723
10 Thrift 180 1.00 5.00 2.411 1 1 .0345
11 Persistence 180 1.00 5.00 2.0556 1.1371
1 2 Tradition 180 1.00 5.00 1.9944 1 .2529
13 Tense at work 180 1.00 5.00 3.0333 .7832
14 Disagreement 180 1.00 5.00 3.2333 .9160
15 Trust 1 80 1.00 5.00 3.4056 1 .0867
16 Good manager 180 1.00 5.00 3.2944 1.1468
17 Two bosses 1 80 1.00 5.00 1.7000 1 .0618
18 Competition 180 1.00 5.00 3.2611 1.1693
19 Rules 180 1 .00 5.00 2.4500 1.2564
20 Failing 180 1.00 5.00 2.8944 1.0908
20
Valid N (listwise) 180

 

General Discussion

This next part discusses and compares the findings of the present

study with Hofstede’s findings. The dissection and analysis in this part is

essential to get a clear picture of national culture differences among other

cultures.

91

 

Saudi National Culture among Other Cultures
The comparison between Hofstede’s VSM94 country rankings and the
Saudis ranking established using the VMS94 data were calculated. These

rankings are presented in Table 14.

Table 14: VSM 94 for some Country Rankings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Values PDI LTO UAI MAS IDV
Highest VEN FRA FRA CAN USA
1 00%
90% PNG VEN WAF VEN AUL
80% WAF IDO VEN AUL FRA
70% SA SIN SA USA IDO
60% IDO PNG AUL PNG CAN
50% SIN AUL USA IDO SIN
40% FRA CAN PNG SIN SA
30% USA USA CAN SA WAF
20% CAN SA IDO WAF PNG
Lowest AUL WAF SIN FRA VEN
0% - 10%

 

 

In Table 14 the following acronyms represent the following countries:
SA ( Saudi Arabia), AUL (Australia), CAN (Canada), FRA (France), IDO
(Indonesia), PNG (Papua New Guinea), SIN (Singapore), USA (United

States of America), VEN (Venezuela), WAF (West Africa).

92

The rankings were then compared with the Hofstede rankings for each
of the five indices. These comparisons are presented in Table 15 through
Table 20.

Power Distance

This value concerns the way people view authority, status differences,
and influence patterns. Hofstede (1991) states that the power distance and
stratification systems which operate in a society are extremely culturally
dependent. Power distance is derived from questions addressing perceptions
of a supervisor’s style of decision making, coworkers’ fear to disagree with
superiors, and the type of decision making that subordinates prefer in their
supervisor.

Hofstede standardizes his measurement of power distance in an
index, having a range among his 50 countries from the highest, 94
(Philippines), to the lowest, 11 (Austria). In the present study, the result for
Saudi administrators in school was (64), this places Saudis high range
among Moslem countries in the Hofstede study (Turkey, 66; Iran, 58;
Pakistan, 55), slightly behind Turkey. At the other end of the range in
Hofstede’s study were the Scandinavian countries and the Anglo Saxon
nations, including the USA. Some of the findings of Hofstede’s study are
shown in Table 16. (Part of this Table has been adapted from Hofstede,

1991, p. 26).

93

Table 15: Power Distance Index (PDI) Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country PDI score Country PDI
score

Malaysia 104 Argentina 49
Guatemala 95 Jamaica 45
Philippines 94 USA 40
Mexico 81 Canada 39
Indonesia 78 Australia 36
India 77 Germany FR 35
Brazil 69 Great Britain 35
Turkey 66 Switzerland 34
Saudi Arabia 64 Finland 33
Iran 58 Sweden 31

Spain 57 New Zealand 22

Pakistan 55 Denmark 18
Japan 54 Israel 13
Italy 50 Austria 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

Power distance relates to the fact that in every society, people have
unequal power. In high power distance cultures, people readily accept
hierarchical organizational structures as well as great disparities in the
amount of power available to different individuals. In these countries, power
is usually centralized in the hands of a few individuals at the top of the
hierarchy. The ideal boss is “a benevolent autocrat’” or “good father”
(Hofstede, 1991, p. 35). In contrast, nations which have low power distance
scores in Hofstede’s study prefer a more equal distribution of power in
organizations. In these societies, people tend to minimize inequalities and
prefer decentralized organizations. The ideal boss is a democratic one who
has few special privileges and does not display status symbols (Hofstede,

1991).

94

People in Saudi schools, a high power-distance region (64 PDI score),
tend to favor unequal distributions of power and influence, and,
consequently, autocratic and paternalistic decision-making practices are
accepted by 91% of participants. As a result, Saudi schools, as a high power-
distance culture, tend to be highly centralized with several hierarchical levels
and a large proportion of supervisory personnel. Subordinates expect to be
supervised closely and believe that power holders are entitled to special
privileges. Such practices would be inappropriate in low power-distance
regions, such as Scandinavia, where participative decision making and
egalitarian methods are prevalent.

Arab tradition recognizes status hierarchy. It may be argued that
Saudi administrators typically would make “decisions autocratically and
paternalistically” (Ali, 1990, p.23) instead of making them “after consulting
with subordinates” (p. 25) as is expected under Islamic teachings. This
should be clarified. It is true that it is an Islamic/Arabic custom and tradition to
consult partners, friends and relatives on an organizational or daily basis,
that Saudi administrators strongly dislike the formal and impersonal notion of
“business is business,” and that they prefer informality and the personal
approach. On the other hand, the open-door policy among Saudis is very
conditional, only a few “selected” people are generally consulted, and the
administrators experience little opposition from their subordinates. In fact,
shared decision making is unlikely to be widely adopted by Saudi

administrators. Therefore, a high PDI score is understandable.

95

Uncertainty Avoidance

A second cultural variable is “uncertainty avoidance.” Hofstede (1991)
explains uncertainty avoidance as, “The extent to which the members of a
culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (p.113).
Countries with high uncertainty avoidance tend to have citizens with high
levels of general anxiety. In such cultures, organizational leaders are likely to
emphasize rules, procedures, planning, and short-term feedback; employees
want and expect structured environments. Where the need to avoid
uncertainty is low, people strongly dislike formal rules and prefer small
organizations which operate within broad guidelines, rather than a rigid
structure of rules and procedures.

Human society has developed ways to deal with the inherent
uncertainty of life, and different societies have adapted to uncertainty in
different ways (Hofstede, 1991). At the national cultural level, tendencies
towards rigidity and dogmatism, intolerance of different opinions,
traditionalism, etc., all relate to a norm for intolerance of ambiguity.

Hofstede’s results vary among his 50 countries from the highest
uncertainty avoidance of 112 (Greece) and the lowest of 8 (Singapore). High
uncertainty avoiders include Japan (92), Turkey (85), and Pakistan (70).
Lower uncertainty avoiders include Sweden (29), Great Britain (35), India
(40), and the USA (46). The research result for Saudi Arabia was (61), which
places Saudis firmly among high uncertainty avoiders similar to other middle

east conteries. Some of the findings of Hofstede’s study along with the

96

present study are shown in Table 16. (Parts of this table have been adapted

from Hofstede, 1991, p. 113).

Table 16: Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country UAI Country UAI score
score
Greece 112 New Zealand 49
Guatemala 101 South Africa 49
Japan 92 Indonesia 48
Turkey 85 Canada 48
Israel 81 USA 46
Brazil 76 Philippines 44
Italy 75 India 40
Pakistan 70 Malaysia 36
Saudi Arabia 61 Great Britain 35
Iran 59 Hong Kong 29
Switzerland 58 Sweden 29
West Africa 54 Denmark 23
Australia 51 Jamaica 13
Norway 50 Singapore 8

 

Uncertainty is a key concept in modern organizational theories
(Hofstede, 1991, pp. 112-3). Societies use technology, law, and religion to
cope with uncertainty, and organizations use technology, rules, and rituals.
Uncertainty avoiding rituals include: memos and reports, accounting
systems, planning systems, control systems, and expert consultants. Some
of Hofstede’s results fit well with Saudi Arabia as a high uncertainty
avoidance country. For example, most Saudi administrators show more
emotional resistance to change, and they are very loyal to their
organizations. American administration value change relatively highly,

Japanese administrators (like Saudi administrators) are more cautious.

97

Also, Saudi administrators do not like conflict. However, if they are forced,
they solve situations by authoritarian behavior. One interesting point
associated with uncertainty avoidance is that the rules in Saudi organizations
are rigid and formal.

Individualism

Hofstede’s third cultural dimension is individualism; countries range
from those which are highly individualistic to those which have a collectivist
outlook. Individualism correlates with national wealth. ln individualistic
cultures, people like variety and autonomy, they value individual initiative,
and want freedom on the job. They expect challenging work and are
motivated to work primarily in order to advance their own self-interest. In less
individualistic cultures, orderliness, security, and moral obligations to the
group are stressed.

Societies show cohesion to different degrees. The norm prevalent in a
given society, as to the degree of individualism or collectivism expected from
its members will, affect the relationship between a person and the
organization to which he/she belongs. It will also affect the organization’s
members” reasons for complying with organizational requirements and which
persons will be admitted into influential positions (Hofstede, 1991, pp.152-3).

In the present study the researcher found that Saudi Arabia was
towards the collectivistic side with (44 score) Hofstede found the most
individualistic society among his 50 to be the USA (individualism index 91)

and the most collectivistic to be Guatemala (6). The result of this study for

98

Saudis was towards the collectivistic side (44), and would be placed
alongside India (48), Japan (46), and Iran (41). Some of the findings of
Hofstede’s study along with this study are shown in Table: 17. (Parts of the
table adapted from Hofstede, 1991, p. 53).

Table 17: Individualism Index (IDV) Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country IDV Country IDV
score score
USA 91 India 48
Australia 90 Japan 46
Great Britain 89 Saudi Arabia 44
Canada 80 Iran 41
Italy 76 Brazil 38
Sweden 71 Turkey 37
France 71 Philippines 32
Norway 69 Malaysia 26
Germany 67 Singapore 20
South Africa 65 South Korea 18
Finland 63 Pakistan 14
Austria 55 Venezuela 12
Israel 54 Equador 8
Spain 51 Guatemala 6

 

Saudi Arabia would be considered as a low individualism country. This
is shown in these examples of answers from participants:
. Most school administrators (68%) prefer a large school and district.
0 They attach more importance to training and use of skills in jobs.
0 Most school administrators (91%) aspire to conformity and
orderliness.
c School administrators believe security in their position to be the most

important (78%).

99

Saudi administrators live in a society where family and friendship
remain important and influential factors in the functioning of institutions and
groups. It is not surprising that the Saudi administrator relies on family and
friendship ties for getting things done within his or her organization.
Masculinity

Hofstede’s (1994) fourth cultural dimension is called masculinity. He
asserts that “masculine” cultures tend to place a high value on recognition,
challenge, and advancement. Workers in such cultures want to earn high
salaries and do not mind competing with others for them. In contrast in less
“masculine” (or “feminine”) countries, workers place a high value on good
relationships, a pleasant environment, cooperation, and service. There, “the
maintenance of good interpersonal relations is a strong motivator” (Hofstede,
1996)

In the present study revealed and placed Saudi Arabia on the
“feminine” side with score of (37). The most “masculine” country among the
50 included in Hofstede's study was Japan (95) and the most “feminine” was
Sweden (5). Some of the findings of Hofstede’s study along with the present
study are shown in Table 18. In this study, the score for Saudi Arabia was
(37), which places it on the “feminine” side, close to Iran (43) and Turkey
(45). This picture of a “caring” and “nurturing” Saudi with less ambition for
achievement and financial reward may surprise some. Saudi Arabia is a

country where there is emphasis on concern for others and a friendly

100

relationship among people. Therefore, a score of 37 makes sense. (See

Table 18, some of this table was adapted from Hofstede, 1991, p. 84).)

Table 18: Masculinity Index (MAS) Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country MAS Country MAS
Score score
Japan 95 Brazil 49
Austria 79 Singapore 48
Venezuela 73 Israel 47
Italy 70 Turkey 45
Jamaica 68 Iran 43
Great Britain 66 France 43
Philippines 64 Spain 42
South Africa 63 Saudi Arabia 37
USA 62 Guatemala 37
Australia 61 Portugal 31
Greece 57 Yugoslavia 21
India 56 Denmark 16
Canada 52 Nonrvay 8
Pakistan 50 Sweden 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short-Long Term Orientation

Hofstede’s fifth cultural dimension is long-term orientation. This
dimension is related to persistence and perseverance, status and order in
positions, thrift, and sense of shame. Its opposite (short-term orientation) is
characterized by personal steadiness and stability, protecting "face", respect
for tradition, and reciprocity of greetings, favors and gifts. This dimension
also describes how information is conveyed and time is valued in a culture.

In this study, the score for Saudi Arabia was (27), which places it on
the short-term orientation (static, past-present orientation) side close to

Sweden (33) and the USA (29). This orientation includes: respect for

101

traditions, social, and status obligations regardless of cost, social pressure to
keep up with the Joneses’ (even if overspending), small savings, few
investments, quick results expected, concern with face, and concern with
possessing truth.

The top 10 countries on long-term orientation (LTO) (dynamic, future
oriented) were: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Brazil,
India, Thailand, Singapore, and Netherlands. These include characteristics
such as: adaptation of traditions to modern context, respect for tradition and
obligation within limits, thrift (sparing resources), large savings, investments,
perseverance toward slow results, willing to subordinate oneself for a
purpose, and concern with virtue. Some of the findings of Hofstede’s study
along with the present study are shown in Table 19 (some of this Table was

adapted from Hofstede, 1991, p. 166).)

Table 19: Long-term orientation (LTO) Index values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country LTO Country LTO
Score score
China 118 Singapore 48
Hong Kogg 96 Bangladesh 40
Taiwan 87 Germany 31
Japan 80 USA 29
South Korea 75 Saudi Arabia 27
Brazil 65 Great Britain 25
India 61 Canada 23
Thailand 56 Algeria 16

 

In sum, after identifying these dimensions by Hofstede’s Model, this
study rated and placed Saudis among other countries within Hofstede

sample accordingly. For instance, Saudis culture was high in Power

102

Distance (score of 64), low in Individualism (score of 44), high in Uncertainty
Avoidance (score of 61), low in Masculinity (score 37), and low in Long-Term
Orientation (score of 27). Japan's culture was also high in Power Distance
(score of 54), low in Individualism (score of 46), and very high in Uncertainty
Avoidance (score of 92). The United States, on the other hand, was low in
Power Distance (40), high in Individualism (91), low in Uncertainty Avoidance
(46), high in Masculinity (score 62), and low in Long-Term Orientation (score
of 29).

Canadian scores were comparable to American results, with 39, 80,
and 48 for Power Distance, Individualism, and Uncertainty Avoidance,
respectively. According to Hofstede's dimensions, Saudi Arabia and the
United States are culturally very different, and Canada and the United States

are very similar. Table 20 illustrates and summaries the differences.

Table 20: Comparison between the United State and Saudi Arabia

 

 

 

COUNTRY PDI IDV MAS UAI LOT
USA 40 9‘1 62 46 29
SA 64 44 37 61 27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

Combinations of Cultural Dimensions

The dimensions can be combined in various ways to illuminate various
organizational and individual consequences of culture. The researcher will
look briefly at two such combinations, supported by this study. The first
combination is between power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The
second combination is between uncertainty avoidance and
masculinity/femininity. Both combinations are discussed along with
Hofstede’s findings (1991).

Power Distance Combined with Uncertainty Avoidance

The combination of power distance and uncertainty avoidance typical
for a country’s culture will have a bearing on the structure of organizations
that will work best in that country. For example, large power distance and
strong uncertainty avoidance countries (like Saudi public schools in the
present study) are a full bureaucracy and pyramid structure (See Fig. 12,
some of this Figure was adapted from Hofstede, 1991, p. 141).)

The figure illustrates the position of Saudi organization among some
countries on the PD and UA dimensions. The Figure also distinguishes
between countries with large power distance and strong uncertainty
avoidance (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Korea, and Japan) and others
countries with small power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance (USA,

Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand).

104

Figure 12: The position of some countries on the Power Distance and
Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small PD Large PD
Weak UA Weak UA
UAI ____._
0
sun
10 DEN ——
— JAM
‘20 :_
IRE HOK
‘ 30 can —_ PHI
' —'— mo
40 uzr. USA __ IDO
I I I I I |CAM I | I I I |
50 | I I I I | I I I I I I
swr IRA
"—“60 FIN —_ SA
GER PAK
'70—AUT __
_— KOR
30 —— TUR MEX
cos —_ FRA
90 —_
' —_ JPN
1oo _—
‘——I10JL201[30|[40 [W160 (170 [so [901100|(PDI)|

 

Small PD
Strong UA

Large PD
Strong UA

Uncertainty Avoidance combined with Masculinity/Femininity

The combination of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity

can be used to indicate what will motivate people in various cultures. For

example, strong uncertainty avoidance countries and femininity (like Saudi

public schools in the present study) are motivated by security and belonging.

Individual wealth is less important than group solidarity. (See Fig. 13, which

105

illustrate the position of some countries on the Masculinity/Femininity and

Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions, some of this Figure was adapted from

Hofstede, 1991). In this Figure, Saudi Arabia position is among countries with

feminine and strong uncertainty avoidance such as Iraq, Thailand, Turkey,

and Korea. In the other hand, USA, Philippines, Great Britain, and India are

located on masculine and weak uncertainty avoidance.

Figure 13: The position of some countries on the Masculinity/Femininity

 

and Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

Feminine Masculine
Weak UA Weak UA
(UAI) _
0
sm _
‘ 1o _ JAM
_ HOK
‘ 20 DEN _ GBR
‘ sws MAL RE
30 mo
—— __ PHI
710—— — USA
I I I I I I I I I I I I
50 I I I I I l I I | ISW' I I I
75?— IRA —_ GER
SA —’PAK
70 THA J: ITA
T KOR TUR—_ MEX
“"— SPA —_ JAP
‘93— —:
‘76?" POR GRE
__]10H20I|30] palm—“760] [70180 [90 |1°°ILMUI
Feminine Masculine
Strong UA Strong UA

These indicate the significance of cultural variety and raise serious
questions concerning how Saudi administrators carry out their organizational
and educational roles. These also question the validity of using modern
bureaucratic and management theories rooted in one culture, in another.
These questions will be responded in the interview portion.

Qualitative Data Analysis and Results

The second phase of the present study consists of in-depth person—to-
person interviews. The interviews were one hour each with 16 informants
who consented among 25 candidates. These interviews served both to
acquire a qualitative feel for Saudi schools’ culture and to ensuring both the
survey and the issues which would result from the questionnaire. On the
basis is that these informants would have something interesting and
informative to say about the culture and how they carry out their
organizational role. The group of informants included superintendents,
supervisors, principals, women, and men.

Findings of the ln-depth Interviews

The 16 interviews produced insightful descriptions of Saudi national
culture and its effects on organizational and administrative roles of school
administrators. The interviews also explained the survey results and clarified
Saudi administrators’ responses on the survey.

In the following section the researcher answered the exploratory

questions of the study:

107

Q. Relative to the elements illustrated in Saudi administrators’
description of their culture, how do they carry out their organizational
and educational roles?

Q. And in constructing their roles, to what extent do Saudi
administrators implement modern bureaucratic (Western style) on their
organizational responsibilities?

During the interviews, administrators identified several factors or
conditions that appear to influence the linkage between national culture and
their professional role. All sources agreed that the way they carry out their
responsibilities in schools results from culture impacts.

The interview section relied on the five dimensions of national culture,
which was described in the previous survey section. The interview explained
two things: first, national culture affects people thinking about their
ORGANIZATION; second, national culture affects people thinking about
PEOPLE in organizations.

The Effects of Saudi National Culture on Organization

Organizing always demands the answering of two questions: (1) who
has the power to decide what? And (2) what rules or procedures will be
followed to attain the desired ends? The answer to the first question is
influenced by cultural norms of power distance; the second question is
answered by cultural norms about uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991,
p.140). Organization structure is related to power distance and uncertainty

avoidance.

108

The interviews with Saudi administrators revealed that their schools
fall within high power distance, which deals with inequalities among people.
In Saudi culture, inequalities are expected and desired; less powerful people
are polarized between dependence and counter dependence, parents and
children related in terms of unilateral obedience and respect, and teachers
transfer personal wisdom. Saudi schools accept and recognize the unequal
distribution of power (e.g. principal and teachers). People are predicted to
experience more evaluation apprehension, conformance pressure, and
domination during face to-face exchanges across hierarchical levels than
members of low power distance cultures.

Some interviewees (principals and supervisors) were afraid to express
disagreement to their top administrators, described their administrators as
having an autocratic/paternalistic decision making style, and believed
subordinates prefer an autocratic style. For example, one of the administrator
stated, “In most cases, we do not question our superiors’ orders; we expect
to be told what to do.” One interviewee described that teachers are treated
with respect, older teachers even more than younger ones; students must
stand up when they enter. The educational process is teacher-centered;
teachers outline the intellectual paths to be followed. In the classroom there
is supposed to be a strict order with the teacher initiating all communication.
Students in class speak up only when invited to; teachers are never publicly

contradicted or criticized and are treated with deference even outside school.

109

In the Saudi system, the quality of one’s learning is almost exclusively
dependent on the excellence of one's teachers.

The interviews revealed also that in Saudi culture there is
considerable dependence on subordination to administrators. Where
subordinates respond by either preferring such dependence, or rejecting it
entirely, the emotional distance between subordinates and their
administrators is large. One principal respond that subordinates are unlikely
to approach and contradict their administrators directly.

In addition, Saudi schools and districts are a high power distance
organization, as this study revealed. In school, high value is placed on
teacher’s obedience. Administrators are seen as making decisions
autocratically and paternalistically not after consulting with subordinates.
The interviews showed that Saudi administrators are more satisfied with a
directive and persuasive superior, one principal said “they like seeing
themselves as benevolent decision makers.” another one added “therefore,
employees in schools fear to disagree with their boss.” Saudi leaders
perceive the role of leaders as a controller rather than a colleague.

Administration is more related to individualism and power distance
dimensions. Administrators are succeeding due to their ability to lead a group
toward the goal achievement. The role of administration is embodied in
decision making processes of the organization. One supervisor responded
with regard to decision making, “Fast decision-making because the boss is

always right, is more autocratic” another one stated “Less favoritism- boss

110

should make decisions more on merit.” School principal described that “In
our schools employees expect their school leader to make a decision, and
they have a tendency to be interdependent.” Autocratic administration is
popular.

The present study reveals that behavior of Saudi administrators in
public bureaucracies, including school superintendents have a moderate
commitment to synchronization. They do not feel that their work time is
scarce and valuable. Fearing responsibility, Saudi administrators prefer to
plan their workday in cooperation with their superiors as described by two
supervisors. Because of the centralization of authority, the managers expend
a major portion of their workday on routine work. Thus managers at higher
levels are overburdened while administrators in lower levels are
underutilized. Some interviewees explained that the work overload at higher
levels leaves little time for developmental activities.

Content analyses of interview transcripts in the present study provide
partial support for the questionnaire results in confirmation of the Saudi
national culture. Because Saudi culture supports constructions of hierarchy in
social and organizational settings, the normal structures and power relations
in school and district are “tall”. School structure for most Saudi schools
reflects a superior/inferior power relationship where the power and/or
authoritative distance between principal and sub ordinate is large.

This study views employees and administrators in Saudi schools as

inherently different kinds of people in some ways. Employees cannot

111

become administrators, nor can administrators become teachers.
Supervisors are often autocratic, and employees are generally not express
disagreements with their supervisor as reported from three administrators.
Therefore, social inequalities are accepted, and those with power expect
privileges not accorded to others. Generally there is high respect for
authority. One’s status and rank are considered to be very important.

One example to illustrate a typical process of decision-making: Saudi
subordinates usually do not feel comfortable with making decisions. As we
mentioned earlier, decision-making is their superiors’ duty. Therefore, making
a decision about approving new methods of teaching or evaluation should
pass to upper administrative levels. This situation can exist even though the
committee agrees with the new methods. However, the members of the
reference committee do not feel comfortable with approving the new methods
because being involved in the decision making process may bring them
unwanted responsibility. This is illustrated by one interviewee, “When I
worked with one school that was a medium size, there was only one
principal, and the rest were teachers. The principal wanted the teachers to
take responsibility in developing the new methods. It was not right. It had to
be the principal who took responsibility in developing the methods,
understand the whole process, and confirming with us. So no one wanted to
sign any documents. They were afraid that if the method did not work then it

would be his fault.”

112

The social construction of authority and acceptance of responsibility in
Saudi school reflects the hierarchical nature of society, and more specifically
the construction of responsibility at the top. Since responsibility was always
upwards, requirements approval was always delayed and sometime
inhibited. For example, in the communication level, the researcher asked the
principals about the general meeting in the district with the superintendent.
One principal respond “Yes, and we did not ask top administrators for
clarification.” The researcher asked why they were not asked them?
“Because I believe that they have the same ideas as I do. I just do not want
to disturb them that would be one of the reasons. Because they are older
than me and work in a higher position.” Another principal responded, “Like
when I go for a meeting with them. At the meeting, there are many people in
there, and they are at a high administration level or directors. Anyway we are
just teachers. I really would not talk to them one by one or talk with a specific
person. So I felt quite uncomfortable in the meeting and only observed.” The
principal added “During observation we have to write down what they talked
about, and sometimes I might skip or lose or ignore some important bits. If I
want to ask them again by phoning them, I am afraid that they might be
busy.” one final person responded, “When I go to the meeting like that, which
has a lot of senior administrator and leaders, I am not confident because I
am afraid of giving them the wrong advice. Seniors ask a lot of questions,
because they are very experienced. For me, I feel nervous but they don’t.”

The construction of differential levels of responsibility, and fear of making

113

mistakes, influences the level of confidence of Saudi participants. The
researcher noted that in some cases the superintendent allowed a few
people to talk freely, but in the end, he decides what he wants to decide. One
school administrator described his own behavior: ‘Well, you know, I’m not
really one for hierarchy. We all work together here, we talk to each other, we
pool our knowledge and we have meetings where some can say what they
like, but the final decision is up to me.” Some people may express their
opinions, but they know that the final step is for their superior.

Communication is concerned with expectations and perspectives. If
personal cooperation is needed in a task, differences in perspectives and
expectations can easily lead to conflict (Blomberg 1998). In the present study
findings with regard to communication, the administrators in the Saudi
schools stressed the importance of hierarchy in the selection of task
administrators. “A principal has authority, period!” one of the supervisors
exclaimed. A administrator within a school district confirmed that people are
accustomed to receiving orders, such as “The general administrator has
decided this, so just get on with it.” “Nevertheless,” he added, “they prefer
getting involved.”

With regard to meetings, the supervisor explained that in an
experience he had “If a boss is there, he or she is the one talking the most.
The subordinates talk little.” Communication was within a department, and
people usually had quite a close relationship or loyalty to their boss. Almost

no formal channels of communication were used, only a distributed memo. A

114

reason for the lack of formal communication was, according to the Saudi
supervisor, that formal channels are too slow. Instead, informal
communication was considered swifter and, thus, more useful.

When asked about the choice of training programs, one of the Saudi
administrators exclaimed, “l have not been shown the time and information
given to the programs. People here are very restrictive with information.
Sometimes, the name of a change program isn’t even known to the schools.
Only a limited number of people are let into the training program.” Lack of
communication between the teachers and the supervisors was a major
source of conflict in one district where the supervisor and the administrators
held different views with regard to the distribution of responsibilities and
concerning expectations. Last semester, a group-learning activity was
overseen by another external consultancy to supervise the work. Up to that
point, the conflict had affected the implementation work quite deeply.
lnfon'nation was mostly one-way, from principal or superintendents to
supervisors and teachers, according to the principal, because of negative
previous experiences involving teachers in idea generation.

The above mentioned reluctance among the school staff to criticize an
administrator could be due to the fact that they belong to a high power
distance culture. Power distance could also play a role in the validation
process described by the Saudi school leaders. Perhaps the groundwork with
regard to decisions takes place in advance to avoid conflicts that could result

in a loss of face for the defeated party, especially if the defeated party is a

115

superior. The “official” meeting is thus not a place for discussion, but rather
the place for confirming consensus. Relationship-focused communication
was indeed valued higher in the Saudi school practices.

lnformants of administration in Saudi schools can be expected to
experience apprehension during face-to-face encounters in an open formal
environment between people of different hierarchical levels. In other words,
the legitimacy of ideas is as much attached to a hierarchical position as to
the content of the ideas themselves. Therefore, the formal meeting is less
easily a place for open discussions and confrontations.

The findings from the interviews indicated a relatively greater use of
relationship-oriented communication, such as informal chats with people,
believed necessary to convince. The differences may be partly explained by
using the “active vs. neutral mode" dimension; according to which members
of Saudi school affective culture can be expected to resort to informal and
face-to-face communication.

In the present study, an important obstacle, according to some Saudi
informants, was that “important information might not get to the green due to
fear.” In addition, resentment and resistance builds from the group, the
supervisor loses respect, motivation is difficult, and change harder to
implement.

The social construction of power has historical roots where privilege
and status are gained from position and title. In the school, this social

construction is translated to parallel the broader construction. Some

116

interviewees were proud of the school district; their identity seemed to a large
extent derived from it.

One can understand that different levels of administration in any
school, Western or Saudis, have different perceptions about roles. However,
in Saudi schools, roles like decisions and general communication, for
instance are controlled from the top administration. Directors or Heads of the
Departments always take precedence over roles identified by lower level
management. Where there is difference, lower level administrators prefer not
to create conflict with their superiors.

The interviews also confirmed that Saudi staff in their schools is
placed in high uncertainty avoidance. Saudi school decisions are made
under conditions of certainty, or risk as described by four principals and two
supervisors. Decision making process becomes increasingly risky or
uncertain the more ambiguous the outcome. Risk implies a chance of loss, or
damage, and it can include loss of image, esteem, position, or information.

The findings of uncertainty avoidance showed three factors which
demonstrate the feelings of some interviewees, such as job stress, “nervous
and tense at work,” strong rule orientation, and intended long life at the job.
In Saudi schools, administrators and staff feel threatened by unknown or
uncertain situations and use written or unwritten rules to maintain
predictability. One interviewee stated, “We are different, you saw that we
have more - and more precise - laws than in those on other modern

organization. You know, our people stick to the rulebook and the paperwork.”

117

Interviewees in this study revealed that most Saudi administrators are
more emotionally resistant to change, and they are very loyal to their schools
and districts. Saudis generally do not like change, although they frequently
talk about it. One participant remarked that “We often substitute words for
action, that is, we talk about changes, but will not take actions required for
change to take place.” Consequently, Saudis may say that they support
innovation while their actions may reject the use of it. In addition, Saudi
administrators and their teachers do not like conflict as described by several
administrators. However, if they are forced, they solve it by authoritarian
behavior.

The interviews revealed that in Saudi schools, teachers and students
favor structured learning situations with specific objectives and assignments,
and students prefer teachers who are experts, know all the answers, and use
academic language. In fact, most of them do not like open-ended Ieaming
situations and are uncomfortable with teachers who say “I don't know.”

Saudi administrators and teachers seem to choose strategies that
offer lower rewards but have a higher probability of success. Furthermore, in
Saudi school culture they are more likely to avoid ambiguity than they are to
avoid risk; they have a need for structure. Some administrators (three
assistant principals and two supervisors) feel that life is a continuous fight
against threat, high anxiety, and stress. They accept of familiar risk but not
ambiguous situations. ‘What is different is dangerous,” said one person. One

should seek the “right” answers, and authorities have the right answers. One

118

of the best descriptions came from one interviewee, ‘We need rules and
precision and punctuality. These are important for us, we feel uncomfortable
with new policies and rules.” They do in fact resist innovation and deviancy,
but they are motivated by security, esteem, and belonging.

From the present study, most school administrators prefer a reduction
of conflict, administration having precise answers to questions, precise
instructions, detailed job descriptions to deal with job complexity, and
avoidance of multiple bosses. Socio-politically this includes: many specific
laws and rules, repressed protest a negative view of institutions,
conservatism, law and order, and nationalism.

The conversation with Saudi school administrators, they seek certainty
in their relationships. Uncertainty is not just for individuals. Rather, it can be
shared within the community or society. In Saudi schools, decision-making is
commonly not a team approach as in western countries. From this study,
subordinates in Saudi school accept that their superiors make decision in an
“authoritarian” way as explained by school principals. The authoritarian
administration style used in Saudi schools is not oppressive. Rather, this
administration style allows the administrator to make decisions for what
he/she thinks is correct. It is his/her job to decide and guide subordinates.
Therefore, decision-making in Saudi schools is usually confined to high level
administration. Saudi culture does not encourage subordinates to dare to

make mistakes, or to take initiative.

119

Supporting Research Finds

All of the above were the findings from the informants concerning the
effects of Saudi national culture on organization. These empirical findings are
supported by some studies. The following are some examples of these
studies.

The findings from the present study confirmed that the high power
distance in Saudi context creates tall organizational structures as most Saudi
organizations. The power-oriented culture in Saudi schools usually tends to
create respect for the school leader as the father figure of the organization.
Rohitratana (1998; p.190) suggested that “due to paternalism and
dependence, the concept of a flat structure in an organization, which entails
speedy decisions, cannot effectively take place.” The reason is that only
those at the top can possibly make decisions; that is their obligation, to
operate as “fathers.”

This study which considers Saudi schools as having a higher power
distance, along with other studies like Ali’s study (1990), shows that role and
attitude of Saudi administration are traditionally autocratic, rigid, and
bureaucratic. The organization of a school is in a pyramid hierarchy form.

In addition, these findings from this study are supported by AI-jeaid’s
(1991) study that Saudi administrators are occupied with deskwork,
telephone calls, meetings, (scheduled and unscheduled) and tour activities.
This also is supported by AI-Awaji (1980) when he discovered the impact of

the social values environment upon bureaucratic behavior, and the influence

120

of the role of authoritarian personalities fonnalist aspects (subjective
influence on laws, regulations and standards).

Therefore, without a superior’s directions and guidance, effectiveness
may be reduced within an organization. McKenna (1995 in Rohitratana 1998:
190) suggests that the superior’s roles “are almost like those in family. There
is respect and obligation. This is how things get done.” This statement is
supported by Komin (1990) that “in Saudi society [and schools] a person’s
power normally comes with his/her title, rank, and status in the organization
or in the society.”

One interesting point associated with uncertainty avoidance is to what
extent the rules in Saudi organizations are rigid and formal. Bjerke and AI-
Meer’s (1993) experience from Saudi organizations is that the official formal
systems are very fluid and elastic, but one must be an “insider" to understand
how these systems work. Another very interesting point related to avoiding
uncertainty is the extent to which Saudis (and Arabs in general) are fatalistic.
This is a very widespread view. Fatalism is in direct contrast with the spirit of
initiative said to be characteristic of Europeans and Americans.

Furthermore, many attribute fatalistic indifference to the teaching of
Islam. Muna (1980, pp.94-6) has two objections to this view: first, the opinion
of the relation between Islam and fatalism probably originates from a study of
the prolonged stagnation of the Arab empire and Islamic civilization. Second,
past and present Islamic achievements (which are in harmony with Islamic

teachings) demonstrate the use of long-range planning and a desire to

121

understand and control the environment. From this study, and from Almeer’s
study, the Saudi context indicates, in line with Muna’s results, that Arab
administrators are far from fatalistic: they are future-oriented, rational in their
planning, and they attempt to prevent adverse results.

Frankly, the school administrators expressed that “New rules in school
are sometimes supposed as a threat towards our job. Innovative rules or
ways in school are sometimes perceived by employees as a threat towards
their job security.” Therefore, employees in Saudi schools, in most cases,
create resistance toward new changes. This confirms research by Ball (1990)
who showed that threats to the security of persons affected by policy often
reconstructed the policy and offered resistance to detailed implementation.
Principals and teachers in Saudi schools are also concerned about their
colleagues’ job security. In the worst scenarios, the teachers take leave or
are absent from meetings.

In sum, the above was a brief reflection of Saudi social behavior
characteristics which supports the present study interpretation of description
about the school leaders’ role in Saudi public schools. In addition, the above
were explanations and responses of the first part in the second research
question which focuses on how national culture affects people’s thinking
about their organization and school. The interviews were focused on who
has the power to decide what? And what rules or procedures will be followed
to attain the desired ends? The answer is influenced by cultural norms of

power distance; and by cultural norms about uncertainty avoidance.

122

Throughout the interviews, administrators acknowledged several
factors or conditions that appear to influence the linkage between national
culture and their professional role. All sources agreed that the way they
carry out their responsibilities in schools is a result of national culture impacts
and how these culture values affect their thinking about organization
structure. The findings from these interviews were very consistent and
coherent with the findings of the survey.

The Effects of Saudi National Culture on People in Organization

The interviews also explained national culture affects people thinking
about PEOPLE in organizations, rather than about organizations themselves.
This relied on three dimensions: individualism, masculinity, and short-long
term orientation, (Hofstede, 1991, p.140).

Saudi schools are ranked low in masculinity, which is distinguished
from the feminine/modesty characteristics that include good working
relationships, cooperation, desirable living area for family, and employment
security. In Saudi schools, dominant values are caring for others and
preservation. Some Saudi administrators believe that “people and
relationships are important, everyone should be modest.” They also said
“Men and women can be gentle, both can express weakness, and fighting
can be minimized”. Men and women show “sympathy for weakness.” They
consider failure as an accident and assume one must work to live. Compared

to the USA, failure is considered as a fault, Cusick state “We in the USA

123

always think failure is someone’s fault, and usually due to some deep
personal deficiency”

One official described the strong kindness and concern among Saudi
school members. “Our staff is often seen embracing and holding hands,
expressing a friendly relationship with others.” The general impartation of
Saudi people is a society where there is emphasis on concern for others and
a friendly relationship among people.

Saudi administrators use intuition and strive for consensus, stress
quality of work life, and resolve conflict by compromise and negotiation. In
the socio-political realm, this refers to the welfare society ideal: helping the
needy and perrnissiveness. As one of the interviewees described the
situation, within school society these is a “priority of preservation of the
environment, and large assistance to poor communities. Conflict is resolved
by negotiation and compromise.” Another interviewee explained, “We prize
the social aspects of work, including working conditions and supervision.”
People in Saudi schools, in fact, typically favor opportunities to Ieam and
grow at work. As one of interviewees said “Students also in Saudi schools
(as a feminine culture) value mutual unity, admire friendliness and social
skills in teachers and they are more likely to make job decisions based on a
major interest in the subject.”

Saudi schools lean towards the collectivistic side. Collectivist/Group
Orientation refers to the family, extended family, clan, labor union,

organization, or culture. In Saudi context, the “we” group is the source of

124

identity, protection, loyalty, and dependent relationships. People are
integrated into strong, cohesive groups who protect them and demand loyalty
throughout their lifetime. The index for this end of the dimension is whether
workers have training opportunities (for the benefit of the organization), good
physical working conditions, and full use of skills and abilities on the job.

The Saudi administrator relies on family and friendship ties for getting
things done within the organization. The reverse of this is that formal
planning systems and policies may become only “shells” or “facades" within
which smaller groups and families operate to the detriment of the efficiency
and the effectiveness of the corporation as a whole. When Arabs meet their
countrymen for the first time, they usually attempt to establish each other‘s
family identity. By contrast, in Western countries, people start by revealing
their occupation and in Japan by giving the name of their employer (Muna,
1980, p.36).

Islam is considered an important source for high collectivism
orientation. Saudi school administrators, as Moslems, are required to co-
operate with others and to share one another’s sadness and happiness.
They are also required to offer non-Moslem groups the maximum social and
cultural right that can be accorded them on the basis of the common bonds
of humanity (Maududi, 1967).

As in all traditional societies, positions are obtained through a mix of
both individual merit and family position. Thus, as Bell (1987) suggested, the

system recognizes merit and is dynamic, but at any point in time the society

125

is, to a certain extent, organized on the basis of social relations among
families that are rooted in the historical contributions of lineage groups. The
Saudi national interest is not viewed as the result of the clash of competing
interests. Rather, the well-being of each family is viewed as dependent on
the well-being of the country as a whole. As individuals and individuals'
interests are emphasized in the United States, the family is emphasized in
Saudi Arabia.

Generally, as a collectivist people, Saudi schools tend to have close
working relationships, confined spaces with other people require regard for
others and harmony, and minimized conflict. People who deviate from the
norm are considered having bad or weak character. Special leave and other
breaks for special family ceremonies are common. In one district, in spite of
their being discipline, relationships between colleagues seemed to be good
natured, and there was a lot of mutual help. Some interviewees confirmed
that “colleagues who met with a crisis in their private lives were supported by
others and by the school and community.”

Collectivist Saudi culture regulates behavior through shame or loss of
“face.” Hiring persons from one’s family reduces business risk. Poor
performance may not result in loss of a job, but may include reassignment of
tasks. As teachers and administrators stated “We prefer and group/team
work.” In-group and out-group can be important in business relations, with
friends getting better treatment. The findings also revealed some characters

such as the high-context communication situations, diplomas provide entry

126

into high status groups, employee-employer relationship is defined in moral
terms, relationship prevails over task, and management is management of
groups. In addition, private life is subject to the group, opinions are
predetermined by group membership, and laws and rights differ by group.
Harmony and consensus are the ultimate goals.

Saudi school administrators and their teachers as a society constructs
its reality as a group or by social interests rather than individual interests.
Saudi culture is a collective society where members of the society exhibit
behaviors which express concern for each other. Saudi culture impacts the
processes within schools of constructing groups and working collectively.
One superintendent stated that “Saudis have to belong to a group,” This
tendency for group behavior and responsibility has emerged as influencing
the role of principals.”

A consciousness from interviews is that Saudi teachers and students
as a Saudi collectivist culture define themselves according to membership in
groups and give the maintenance of groups a high priority. Trust and
relationships with others are the basis of the Saudi culture. Relationship-
oriented behavior happens more commonly than work-oriented behavior in
Saudi society and its schools. Views and opinions have a greater impact on
school administration when expressed by members of a family or in-group
members.

A general impression from interviews is that Saudi culture pays more

attention to emotional issues and to the development of relationships. Saudi

127

culture constructs relationships affected by the domination of administrators
and a lack of willingness for subordinates to accept responsibility. To ensure
these relationships, Saudi School leaders seek to avoid conflict, even if work
is repeated and slowed. Saudi school leaders base their relationships on
trust and emotion. They prefer to have stable social relationships and
maintain surface harmony. One female school principal described surface
harmony, “A person is preferred to be smooth, kind, pleasant, conflict-free,
non-assertive, polite and humble.” Another principal said, “We usually
believe that being nice helps people and builds the kind of long-term
obligation to provide service, which just does not follow from blasting an
unseen ear over the telephone.”

In Saudi schools the role of a superior is perceived as a “father figure”
of the school. Face saving and criticism avoidance values play a very
important role during school meetings. Since Saudis give great emphasis on
“face” and “ego,” preserving one another’s “ego” is the basic rule of all Saudi
interactions, both on the continuum of familiarity/unfamiliarity, and the
continuum of superior—inferior, with difference only in degree.” Therefore,
conflicting with superiors may translate as not saving or respecting their
superior’s face. This type of behavior is not uncommon in Saudi Arabia. An
administrator commented “A person who presents ideas and gets criticism
for those ideas will take it as the criticisms toward himself/herself not the
ideas themselves.” Thus criticism is constructed as an insulting situation. We

then can understand that, even though the requirements from their principals

128

may not be the right requirements, the teachers will not usually criticize or
create conflict with their principal’s requirements. “ Teachers need to act with
respect, believe in, and obey their principal. In our school, younger people
must respect older people or those who are in a higher social rank.
Therefore, a young employee will follow the ways that senior undertake their
work.” This culture of respect and conflict avoidance discourages
subordinates from independent thinking and discourages junior employee
from trying other skills. The social construction of staff agreement in Saudi
school contexts affects the quality and completeness of operations in school.
Challenging those constructions disables schools and inevitably impacts
them on obtaining the right behavior for school development.

Motivation is integrated into cultural values. Performance evaluations
and payment systems must be geared to such values. Motivation is also
related to uncertainty avoidance and masculinity dimensions. In the Saudi
school culture, with strong uncertainty avoidance and low masculinity, the
salary range is wide. The Saudi wage system is based on seniority status.
Saudis promote the contribution of employees and encourage life
employment in a school. The empirical findings below refer exclusively to
Saudi schools.

The most important source of motivation mentioned by the Saudi
school staff and many of the administrators involved was, as predicted by
Maslow and Herzberg, recognition and “feeling important.” A number of

quotes will serve to exemplify the responses. What motivates is to tell

129

employee, “We have chosen you for this work. You have an important role"
and when they recognize that their inputs have been taken into account.
When we saw how the result looked and we got enthusiastic. As it is now,
what I do, affects everyone, since everything is control and supervised.”
“People prefer being given attention by the boss than just receiving a raise in
the pay check as compensation for extra work, or simply just complying with
orders.” They consider that sending people to conferences or meetings, or
trips, and giving public recognition, and publications with photos of them are
appreciated more than just a raise in the pay-check due to increased work
load.

Group incentives, such as an excursion, a tour, or a big party seemed
to be preferred in Saudi schools. Compensation given for the extra workload
should be universal - all should get the benefit. Group pressure seemed to be
an important source of motivation. “You can tell a group to learn the new skill,
and they will help each other,” an administrator commented. And a Saudi
supervisor explained that “a group member who performs badly will feel
obliged to improve, and the others help out.” Performance appraisal is here
defined as the “systematic written review of the performance of staff at
regular intervals and holding one-to-one interviews to discuss performance
issues with immediate line managers” (Anderson 1996).

A general impression from the Saudi administrators and interviews
with the Saudi advisors are that change along the way is accepted and taken

for granted. The following quotes serve to exemplify this. “It is common that

130

the supervisor tells you ‘Have this ready by next month.’ However, there are
so many factors we cannot control”. “You can’t control everything. There are
so many things out of reach. If you put up dates here and there, they have to
be changed any way later on” (Administrator). “This always happens. The
systems grow” (Advisor at District). At the same time, some of the persons
interviewed in Saudi schools were upset by a number of changes
encountered in the administrative roles, and the administrator for high school
said, “We should have planned more before starting. This is an important
lesson to convey to our staff and teachers in school.” The district supervisor
stressed the importance of obtaining correct information from the start to
minimize changes. “All this new methods in administrative methods and
changing along the way is a real problem.

In a relatively rule-based society, and in particularistic Saudi schools,
the focus is instead on the exceptional nature of every situation. Thus, legal
agreement could be expected to be readily modified if conditions change,
and a trustworthy person is one who honors changing conditions. Saudi
administrators see an agreement as an expression of what is viewed as ideal
but hardly reachable, which can explain their acceptance (even though not
without complaints) of deviations from an established time plan. In the
present study, Saudi administrators generally seemed quite prepared for and
found it relatively easy to accept deviations from a time plan. The Saudi
participants took changes along the way for granted, and acted accordingly

by letting delays push deadlines forward.

131

Saudi administrators are found to be highly particularistic. Even though
rules, or in this case deadlines, are also set up in the Saudi school
implementations, they are more seen as a guide to what can be expected in
the absence of unforeseen events. This could explain the lax attitude toward
deviations from plans among the Saudi administrators interviewed.

Most participants in the present study stressed that understanding
leads to acceptance, that education plays an important role for staff
involvement. Lack of knowledge and skills in a new technology like
computing was mentioned in Saudi public schools as a source for resistance
to change. When people began receiving training, their uncertainty began to
diminish.

The Ministry of Education, like other organizations, sees instructor-led
training as the only way to teach employees how to use new skills.
According to Auyeung and Sands (1996), one widely used way to distinguish
learners is through Kolb’s (1976) model of learning styles. In this model,
learners are grouped along two dimensions, concrete to abstract and active
to reflective. A concrete learning orientation focuses on being involved in
experiences and understanding unique areas. Instead, abstract learners
focus on building general theories, using logic and concepts. An active
learning orientation implies a focus on practical applications, on doing as
opposed to observing. Reflective learners, on the other hand, focus on

understanding the meaning of ideas by carefully observing them.

132

The Saudi administrators assumed change is possible and gave people
the opportunity to learn on the job, as expressed by one of the
administrators, “It’s a way to strengthen their capabilities.” Attitude was seen
as the most important factor influencing whether a person will learn or not.
Previous experience with computers was not an issue “anyone with the right
attitude can Iearn....some of the teachers had never worked with a computer
before, and even less with a mouse.”

Power distance is a dimension that can be used to analyze the findings
above. In a culture high in power distance, like the Saudi schools, part of the
legitimacy of a “super” may lie in his/her condition as a superior. The findings
show that the use of "super" as trainers seems to work relatively well in the
Saudi schools high power distance context, where the teacher is mainly seen
as a mixture of an authority figure and facilitator. The Saudi schools findings
showed that variations in learning preferences exist within national cultures,
and that other factors seem to play an equally important role in shaping the
learning preferences of adult learners. National culture can, nevertheless, be
seen as yet another factor, among others.

The findings also showed that Saudi administrators value the relative
importance of personal steadiness and stability. An impression from the
interviews is that Saudi culture pays more attention to respect for tradition,
reciprocation of greetings, and favors. In Saudi school culture, change can
occur more rapidly as long-term traditions and commitments do not become

obstacles to change.

133

Supporting Research Finds

All of the above were the findings from the interviewees concerning
the effects of Saudi national culture on people in organization. These findings
are supported by some studies. The following are some of these studies.

The general impartation of Saudi people in their schools is emphasis
on concern for others and a friendly relationship among each other. This
result is supported by the study made by Muna. Arab employees’
expectations, as seen by the managers, include “kind and human treatment,”
“care,” “respect,” “control,” and “guidance” (Muna, 1980, p.41).

Ali (1990) suggested that management practices in Arabic societies
are influenced by Islam, tribal traditions, Western influences, and government
intervention. Particularly relevant to the present study is his discussion of the
importance of personal and family loyalties operating within systems of
bureaucratic rules which are developed to appear “more Western” but are not
seriously implemented.

Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has a professional, full-time
governmental and business work force organized into offices and
departments, participants' reports of management practices should reflect
the traditional authority of their society rather than the legal-rational principles
that are relatively more characteristic of American organizations (Ali, 1990).
Saudi government and managers, since they share the same traditional
expectations, would both be expected to operate according to these

traditional organizing principles.

134

In Saudi Arabia, school as society constructs its reality as a group or
by social interests rather than individual interests. Hofstede (1991) argues
that collective societies usually support structures where people are born and
live in extended families. Relationships between subordinates and superiors
are perceived in moral terms, like family links (Hofstede 1991). Saudi culture
is a collective society where members of the society exhibit behaviors which
express concern for each other. In writing of collectivism in Saudi schools,
Hofstede (1991) writes “In the collectivist classroom the virtues of harmony
and the maintenance of ‘face’ reign supreme. Confrontations and conflicts
should be avoided, or at least formulated so as not to hurt anyone; even
students should not lose face if this can be avoided” (p. 62).

Relationship-oriented behavior happens more commonly than work-
oriented behavior in Saudi schools. Alameer (1993) confirmed that personal
and family connections play an integral part in operations of Saudi schools.
Alameer (1993) stated that “Saudis work hard to build and maintain
relationships among a wide and complex network of people, and Saudi’s
interactions are more or less controlled within the context of a strong
hierarchical system”.

Harmony and consensus are the ultimate goals. This result is
supported by Al-Awaji, an early researcher on the Saudi managerial
environment. He wrote:

Saudi Arabian society is composed of collective
groups rather than of individuals and, therefore, the

basic loyalty and concern of its individuals is not to
the nation as a whole but to their particular collective

135

social units which mainly center around the family
which provides the society with a set of basic values
and conceptions which define and stimulate social
interactions (Al-Awaji, 1971, p.249).

With regard to cultural variations in the learning styles, a study by
Auyeung and Sands (1996), shows that there probably is no single universal
learning style for students of a particular field. In a society where the teacher
tends to have the role of a facilitator, the self-directed Ieaming approach can
be expected to dominate. Auyeung and Sands (1996) found that this can be
expected in individualist cultures, where the learners are “free from their
overpowering elders" and “the responsibility of learning lies with the student.”
In an individualist culture, personal relevance is an important aspect in the
learning experience, and learning is thus relatively self initiated and
personally involving.

In sum, the above were the descriptions and explanation of the
second part of the second research question which focuses on national
culture affects people thinking about people in organizations and schools.
The interviews were focused on and relied on three dimensions,
individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation and the answer is
influenced by these cultural norms.

Throughout the interviews, administrators recognized several factors
or conditions that appear to influence the linkage between national culture

and their professional role. All informants agreed that the way they carry out

their roles in schools is a result from national culture impacts and how these

136

culture values affect their thinking about people in organization and school.
The findings from these interviews were very consistent and reliable with the
findings of the survey.

In the following section the researcher answered the third exploratory
question of the study:
Q. In constructing Saudi administrators roles, to what extent do Saudi
administrators implement modern bureaucratic (Western style) on their
organizational responsibilities?
Modern Bureaucracy and Organizational Responsibilities

The purpose of this portion was to ascertain participants’ general
ideas about modern bureaucracy toward their responsibilities. Much
discussion of the role of values in organizations has assumed that
governmental organizations always represent "positive" or widely admired
values. The researcher suggests, rather, that they are institutions reflective of
their societies. As the values of members of society shift, the researcher
would expect pressures on organizations, and especially on governmental
organizations, to adopt different practices. This work suggests that
governmental organizations will tend to bear the burden of representing their
members' values and, as such, should be the arenas of greatest conflict
when values do shift.

Ali (1990) suggested that administration practices in Arabic societies

are influenced by values, tribal traditions, Western influences, and

government intervention. Particularly relevant to the present study is his

137

discussion of the importance of personal and family loyalties operating within
systems of bureaucratic rules which are developed to appear “more Western”
and are not seriously implemented.

Analysis of the transcripts of the interviewees revealed that most
participants felt that there is a difference between Arab culture, in general,
and the Western world. They believed that these differences certainly impact
the transfer of Western styles to their country. Overall, they felt that only
upper level employees, who have been influenced by Western studies,
support management theories into Saudis institutions. Moreover, they
reported that much of this support was stronger in principle than in action.
Some participants noted that changes in their styles of administration are
mostly brought into organizations by people who have studied in the Western
world. They exhibit a different attitude towards modern implications, often
perceiving these new methods as beneficial to the organization. Some felt
that employees consider themselves first and only think about how
innovations will benefit themselves or their families. Indeed, all the
participants in the interviews agreed that the most outstanding cultural factor
that distinguishes Arab society is the importance placed on the family.

Of course, as in all traditional societies, positions in Saudi culture are
obtained through a mix of both individual value and family position. Thus, the
system recognizes value and is dynamic, but at any point in time the society

is, to a certain extent, organized on the basis of social relations among

138

families that are rooted in the historical contributions of family groups (Bell,
1987)

The Saudi national interest is not viewed as the result of the clash of
competing interests. Rather, the well-being of each family is viewed as
dependent on the well-being of the country as a whole. As individuals and
individuals’ interests are emphasized in the United States, the family is
emphasized in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia
has a professional full-time governmental and business work force organized
into offices and departments, participants' reports of administration practices
should reflect the traditional authority of their society rather than the legal-
rational principles that are relatively more characteristic of American
organizations (Ali, 1990). Saudi government and administrators, since they
share the same traditional expectations, would both be expected to operate
according to these traditional organizing principles. One of the interviewees
described the situation in school: “Centralization of authority at the very top
and societal values prevented the leadership group from shared decision
making with other groups or individuals, which led to a weakness in the final
decision”.

From the finding of the first part of this study, the comparison between
the Saudi culture and the United States culture on Hofstede’s five
dimensions can tell us something about the validity of using American
management theories in Saudi training activities. The results of Hofstede’s

study and the present study suggest that there are major cultural differences

139

between the two nations and schools as follows: Saudi Arabia schools are
considerably higher on power distance and uncertainty avoidance;
considerably lower on individualism and relatively lower on masculinity.

Power distance is very much related to the question of leadership and
follower-ship. Most curriculums used in leadership training centers in Saudi
institutions are western theories. Theories of leadership presented in those
training centers are usually based on writers such as McGregor, Likert, and
Blake and Mouton. There are reasons to question whether these theories
apply in high power distance countries like Saudi Arabia. When the
researcher asked the school administrators about their perspectives in this
matter, most of them demonstrated the difficulties of implementation. “l and
my colleagues took these courses and training session, but most of these
theories have no practical implementation.” One informant said, “I think there
is a gap between western methods and eastern methods... this related to
the nature of the system and the way to do the work.” Another perspective
was that “these western styles need more freedom within our system to
practice some of them.” Some believed that “since we have centralization
system, we can’t employ some of modern theories."

Throughout the interviews numbers of Saudi administrators refer
these obstacles of implementing Western methods to culture matter. These
perceptions of Saudi administrators are supported by Hofstede (1991, p.259)
who claims that subordinates have stronger dependence needs in larger

power distance countries. Subordinates expect superiors to act

140

autocratically. Everyone expects superiors to enjoy privileges, and status
symbols are very important.

Another study (Harris and Moran, 1987, p.37) presents some
interesting results on how performance appraisals are done in three different
cultures, i.e. the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. Some of the results are that
the American manager is more of a rational decision maker, while the
Japanese manager is more of a facilitator. The researcher would like to add
that the Saudi administrator is more of a father figure.

Objective performance appraisal in America is for fairness and
employee development while in Saudi Arabia it is for placement. And in
Japan, it is for the direction of organization/employee development. In
America, appraisal is done by a supervisor, while a manager in Saudi Arabia
may be several layers up; the appraiser has to know the employees well. In
Japan, a mentor and supervisor appraiser has to know employee well also.

Therefore, satisfactory management theories developed in the USA
may not be practical for the Saudi culture. Kiggundu (1983) reviewed 94
articles on organizations in developing countries and concluded that:

History, both ancient and recent, has fundamentally
altered the values of developing and industrialized
countries shaping, in each, largely different attitudes
toward the managerial implications of
industrialization. This explains why theory developed
in a modern Western setting may be irrelevant or
inadequate in the setting of a developing country.

Moreover, this result is similar to Brewster’ study (1994). He

concluded that US. originated human resource policies and practices are

141

unacceptable to European countries, due partly to cultural differences
between the United States and Europe. This also explains the failure of
some projects and programs in Saudi education. One administrator
accounted, ‘We were copied the practices of the American system rather
than adapted to Saudi practices.” The researcher may add another reason
which is the lack of understanding Saudi national culture among many school
administrators.

As an illustration of this, American leadership theories such as Likert’s
“System 4 Management” and Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid are
suitable for the US cultural context because they all advocate the
subordinate’s participation in the manager’s decision. This can be explained
by the fact that the USA is low on power distance. By contrast, Saudi Arabia
is high on power distance. Hence, Saudi school leaders do not advocate
participative administration. By the same token, other management theories
in the areas of motivation and organization which were developed in the USA
may not fit the Saudi culture. The results of the combinations of power
distance with uncertainty avoidance and uncertainty avoidance with
masculinity/femininity which were presented in this study show other
differences between the US. and Saudi cultures and also suggest that
American management theories are not appropriate for the Saudi culture. So,
Saudi school leaders should adapt them to the Saudi culture rather than vice

versa.

142

Most motivation theories in use today were developed in America by
Americans and about Americans. Of those that were not, many have been
strongly influenced by Americans theories. Each theory attempts to explain
why human beings behave in the ways they do and what managers can do to
encourage certain types of behavior while discouraging others. Those
theories are based on the cultural settings and on the behavior and goals of
individuals in America. Consequently managers trained in concepts such as
McGegor’s Theory X and Y, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, may not be
able to apply them with similar results with a foreign workforce or in a foreign
country.

People in Saudi schools demonstrate the need for job security
because they are in a high uncertainty avoidance society. Whereas people
with low uncertainty avoidance would probably be motivated by more risky
opportunities for variety and fast track advancement. This study also
discloses that people in Saudi schools demonstrate that motivators in the
relationships between subordinates and their boss would be successful
because of a high power distance. In addition, Saudi schools are collectivist
(low individualism), suggesting that motivation will more likely work through
appeals to group goals and support. In Saudi schools as a feminine culture,
the boundaries could be looser, motivating people through more flexible roles
and work networks.

Most contemporary theories of leadership have originated in the

United States. From visionary leadership theories to team leadership

143

theories, once again most have been developed in the context of the USA
culture. The question is: Will a person's favorite leadership style in her or his
own culture be equally appropriate in another culture? According to Adler
(1997, p.157), some researchers suggest that American approaches to
leadership and management apply abroad; most managers, however,
believe that they must adapt their style of leadership to the cultures of their
employees. That is, they believe that leadership is culturally dependent.
Likewise, Hofstede concluded that participative management approaches
which were strongly promoted by American theorists and managers were not
suitable in all cultures.

This finding also supported as precisely what Schellenberg (1998) did
in his “Modern archives.” In his preface he calls the book “a study of
contrasts.” He explained that he did not believe the American methods of
handling modern public records to be necessarily better than those of other
countries: they are merely different. Differences in method, according to
Schellenberg, should be understood for purely professional reasons: to
promote a general understanding of archival principles and techniques. The
researcher in this study agrees: do not postpone the differences, but search
for the differences in the quest for common elements in theory and practice.

Education was defined as another factor that motivates behaviour in
organization, particularly the acceptance of new and modern styles in
administration. Participants agreed that education is the most important

avenue to improve traditional organization in Saudi context. They especially

144

mentioned the broadening of one’s perspective due to studying abroad and
learning foreign languages. Honestly, they felt that once Saudi students
returned to their respective countries, the knowledge and skills they learned
in western countries may not be accepted as viable alternative policies and
procedures in organizations, including accepting new theories and styles.
Indeed, the consensus of some interviewees was that some Saudis educated
in the west, upon their return to their homeland, may find it difficult to use the
knowledge they learned in foreign universities to create changes. National
culture which relates to family, values, and national traditions often outweighs
accepting change from the outside. In addition, they felt that these modern
and strange methods threaten jobs and create instability, which affects the
outcomes of the organization and is often seen as a threat to their entire way
of life.

Using the Hofstede Model, the most relevant dimensions for
leadership are individualism and power distance. What does the power
dimension imply in terms of participative leadership? The USA is implying
that subordinates are allowed to participate in the leader’s decision, but these
remain the leader’s decision; it is the leader who keeps the initiative. In high
power distances, like Saudi organizations, subordinates do not want to
participate. In fact, a leader who is not autocratic may be viewed with
skepticism; employees become uncomfortable with leaders delegating
discretionary decisions. The bottom line is that leadership needs to be

matched to the prevailing cultural climate.

145

One interviewee said, “Western styles of decision-making are fast and
have to be direct. They believe that their methodology is correct by applying
their knowledge and their experiences to use in a Saudi context. It also
depends on each individual style of working as well.” Therefore, each
country needs its own distinct methodologies for work and job.
Understanding local culture will assist school leaders to adapt current
methodologies for practices to suit each country.

Since the fundamental difference between each country and each
society lies in its local culture, beliefs, and values, leaders need to
understand that local culture is able to be successfully communicated, and
they need to develop role and practices. This problem may also be caused
by excruciatingly applying western ways of thinking and analyses of
sfluafions.

The researcher does not believe that the “amount of Western contact”
is the major factor leading to relatively more bureaucratic practices in Saudi
organizations. That is, Saudi administrators do not run their organizations
according to relatively more traditional principles because they do not know
how to run their organizations bureaucratically; rather, they have made a
choice intended to express their cultural preferences. Differences in
organizational practices are the result of a balancing of personal preferences
(or what Hofstede [1991] called “collective mental programming”) and
environmental pressures, not the effects of a lack of knowledge or “level of

development.” Note that these choices are not necessarily explicitly

146

 

articulated, (although in Saudi Arabia many of them have been); rather, they
reflect the differences in values that have been extensively documented by
comparative-management researchers. The argument is that the use of more
traditional organizing practices was an informed choice, rather than the result
of ignorance of bureaucratic principles. Thus, Saudi governmental
organizations more closely reflected the organizing ideals of their society
than did the businesses, which must mediate between their personal ideals
and the meritocratic pressures of members of their task environments.

The researcher found that Saudis reported greater goal clarity. It may
be that this is not a good substitute for degree of bureaucratization. Saudi
Arabia has a comparatively smaller and more homogeneous population
ethnically and religiously. It is possible that goal clarity is more a function of
organizational size and homogeneity rather than of the extent to which
organizations are bureaucratically organized.

This attempt to assess traditional organizational practices has shown
some promise, and future research in this area may help to clarify these
Issues. Alternatively, it could be that there are genuinely no differences in
how Saudi governmental administrators view themselves as individuals who
may use the resources provided to them to pursue their personal interests.

Weber suggested that this was a characteristic of traditional societies,
but it may well be that the practice has only been forced underground in
societies adopting legal-rational values. Certainly, the pattern of results found

in the present study seems to suggest that the organizational practices in

147

Saudi schools may be more complex than the simple bureaucratic/traditional
dichotomy originally proposed.

This recognition of the role of values in administration should make it
easier for administrators in non-Western society to make more finely
measure judgments about which management theories from the West to
apply. This work is also intended to allay the understood assumption held by
many observers and advisors that managing according to other than legal-
rational principles reflects a “lower level of development” rather than choice.
In fact, because non-Westerners are forced to contrast their values with
those of Westerners, they could be seen as making more informed choices
than are Westerners who are not exposed as frequently to alternative forms
of management in practice, particularly in the public sector.

The data show that elements of cultural background may be a strong
precursor of administrators” responsibilities in organizations. As such,
national culture may be an important consideration in understanding
administrators’ role and follower behaviors and in developing appropriate
leader training activities. Uncertainty avoidance may be particularly important
to administrators’ behavior, given current and projected organizational
environments of increasing change and uncertainty in much of the
educational organizations. As organizations become more global, it is critical
that leadership theory and practice be increasingly reexamined through the

lens of culture.

148

The present study also revealed the efforts of Saudi education system
to maintain their identity. Saudi reformers and educational leaders shaping
school culture provide an “action plan” for school administrators committed
to transforming their schools for success, as one of the official in the Ministry
of Education mentioned. He described that “the officials in the Ministry
somewhat help define and inculcate certain shared values and beliefs among
districts and school members, and they make room for new methods and
modern bureaucracy and they assert harmony with traditional system and
culture.” He added, “We to maintain a modern system, as school leaders,
we deal with the most important, and fundamental issues faced by people in
our schools.”

Again officials and reformers of the Ministry of Education strive to
accommodate two systems and construct both cultures. They go about
defining and instilling values and beliefs. The Ministry follows specific ways
and approaches, but three approaches are most focused on by school
leaders through the interviews. F irst, some informants emphasized that “our
system develops a clear, simple, value-based philosophy, a statement of
organizational purpose and mission that everyone understands.” This task is
anything but simple. For example, one official said “The Saudi Supreme
Commission on Educational Policies sets basic policy, goals, and major
structural elements for the national educational system.” The interviewees
meant the document of “Educational Policy in Saudi Arabia” which is written

by the Higher Committee of Educational Policy. It contains a total of 236

149

articles covering the principles and objectives for all levels of general
education. This comprehensive document gives the main references in the
formulation of ideas and provides the main principles that direct education, its
policies, plans, objectives, aims, systems, curricula, teacher training, and
evaluation systems. In fact, it is the major key to accommodating between
two systems and facilitating adoption of a modern bureaucracy. Furthermore,
official groups use their cognitive power to assess the organization’s context,
its environment, and the key factors in that environment; they ask input from
others; and they convince top level executives that all this is possible.

One of the school administrators talked about the issue of goal
achievement, the nature of Saudi school goals, how they are defined, and
their importance. He said, “We are all here to serve our students by
identifying and meeting their needs, whatever they may be. That value says
a lot about how goals are defined and what goal achievement is all about.”
For example, he explained the actions of the principal which are noticed and
interpreted by others as “what is important.” One interviewee asserted, “We
encourage our administrators because we believe that the principal who acts
with care and concern for others is more likely to develop a school culture
with similar values.”

The issue of goals, of course, relates to leaders’ need for power and
how that need can be played out to benefit the schools and organizations by
empowering others or to benefit only the individuals. One official explained,

“Leaders’ empowerment of others is so important because it models the

150

value of achievement in a larger, Ministry and district sense, not just for their
own benefit or the benefit of their department.” Saudi officials in Ministry
empower others to define organizational policies, and, they develop
programs that are explicitly based on the values and beliefs contained in the
philosophy that in fact put those values and beliefs into organizational action.
For example, one official pointed out that “hiring and promotion policies are
take into account values consistent with those in organization’s philosophy as
well as applicants’ knowledge and skill.” He added “For instance, reward
systems are based on the values of cooperation and innovative action
instead of on competition over limited resources.”

The issue of adaptation is another way for Saudi leaders to
accommodate two systems and construct both traditional culture and modern
culture. Adaptation concerns how people deal with external forces, and the
need to change considers two specific beliefs about change and adaptation.
The first goes like this: we really just have to go along with outside forces,
what we do can’t really make much difference. Such a belief has some clear
implications for action or inaction. Contrast this outlook with the belief that
we can control our own destiny. The former belief may be more accurate in
an objective sense. However, it also ensures that nothing will be done, and
that what is done will not make a difference, because no one expects it to.
Even if the second belief is not as accurate, it certainly helps make it more
likely that action will be taken. And perhaps that action will have a positive

effect, especially because people expect it to.

151

These beliefs dealing with change and adaptation are actually the
organizational analog of self-efficacy, the belief that one’s destiny is a matter
of self-control. Therefore, Saudi reformers and experts are trying to teach
followers self-efficacy through school leaders. Only then is it likely that the
school system will develop the sort of culture that makes successful
adaptation to change more likely. One participant said that “Some articles on
our education policy demonstrate the full harmony between science and
values, and our Islamic values are a combination of religion and secularism.”
Another added, “Education policy is encouraging and promoting the spirit of
scientific thinking and research and looking for the wise ways to meet all the
human needs.” Most participants indicated that new ways of administration
should not conflict with Saudi culture and values. One participant remarked,
“Some western styles are unacceptable if they conflict with our values and
principles.” In general interviewees confirmed that the door is conditionally
open for new methods and ways in which to facilitate the role of
administrators, but new ways must be compatible with cultural values.

Coordination is another way for Saudi school leaders to maintain their
cultural values and open the door for modern methods and innovation.
Coordination refers to how people work together to get the job done; Saudi
school leaders spoke of vision and cognitive power as the means by which
school leaders think through complicated cause and effect chains and decide
how to create modern method and desirable outcomes. This process

involves looking at the organization as a system and thinking about how it fits

152

together which happens, of course, through, the coordinated efforts of
organization members. Saudi official in the Ministry stated “We urge followers
to develop their cognitive power, their own vision, so that followers are able
to coordinate their efforts effectively.” Another one added “School principals
work on team-building; they should put their agenda second and know that
they do not have all the answers. Everyone has limitations.” This means that
they should learn from students and staff; and they should put people before
paper to get the best outcomes.

The most important issue in the education system in Saudi institutions
is that the strength of shared values and beliefs - that is the degree to which
people in district and schools generally agree that these values and beliefs
are important - should guide their actions. Everyone is expected to stick to a
common core of values and beliefs. This itself is a value that strengthens a
positive functional approach toward adapting, achieving goals, and
coordinating efforts.

Despite these efforts and ways which are working in many parts in the
educational system, reformers with researchers need more studies and
research to add a new knowledge to school administrators who should be
better able to understand the culture within which they operate. Schein
(1984) stated that “what one brings culture to the level of the organization,
and even down to groups within the organization, one can see more clearly
how it is created, embedded, developed, and ultimately manipulated,

managed, and changed”. Finally, the norms of Saudi Arabia’s cultural values

153

have survived despite the rapid pace of modernization over the last 50 years.
As one educational expert in the Ministry of Education stated, “The miracle is
not how much Saudi society has changed, . . . [i]t is how resilient the society
has been in the face of change.” The family system is still intact and indeed
is probably the most stabilizing force in the country. Whatever is Saudi
Arabia‘s political, economic, or education future, it is difficult to visualize
without the paramount importance of family ties.

In conclusion, the implementation of western theories into Saudi
education requires an understanding of national culture which generates
unique behaviors within the framework of national structure. Culture gives
people the sense of order they have in their everyday lives. This study
presented the finding of interviews to discover linkage between Saudi
national culture, the organizational responsibilities of school administrators,
and the extension of implement modern western methods in Saudi schools.
Theses data indicate that most respondents believe specific components of
their culture have influence on how they carry out their organizational roles,
which are different from the western setting. In addition, most western
theories and methods are incompatible with Saudi national culture,
specifically at the administration level. Therefore, Saudis efforts vary to both
maintain national culture and to implement new ways of carrying out their
school responsibilities. They are trying to adapt and adopt some western

theories to be utilized in Saudi school culture.

154

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of data collected of both
quantitative and qualitative analyses in a survey and in the interviews among
Saudi school administrators. Section one summarized the responses to the
Hofstede’s survey and the descriptive statistics regarding Saudi national
culture. The findings of 180 participants were as follows: Saudi’s culture was
high in Power Distance (score of 64), low in Individualism (score of 44), high
in Uncertainty Avoidance (score of 61), low in Masculinity (score 37), and low
in Long-Term Orientation (score of 27).

Section two summarizes the results of the interviews with school
administrators regarding how they carry out their organizational and
educational roles in light of their national culture. The findings of 16
interviewees produced insightful descriptions of Saudi national culture and its
effects on organizational and administrative roles of school administrators.
On the organizational level, Saudi administrators reflect both high power
distance and high uncertainty avoidance. Saudi school culture has more
structuring of organizational activities. They prefer rigid rules and view
uncertainty as a threat. Conflict is perceived as a threat and individuals seek
to avoid failure. On the people’s level, Saudi administrators reflect short-term
orientation and feminine. They also reflect collectivity as a framework for the
functioning of school. They have close working relationships with each other,
and created a cooperative climate with other people require regard for others

and harmony. The findings demonstrated friendly and open attitudes with

155

 

people in schools. Finally, the findings of this study indicates that theories
developed in a modern Western setting may be irrelevant or inadequate in
the setting of a developing country like Saudi Arabia. Saudi school
administrations must adapt modern western theories to the Saudi culture.
The questionnaire and interviews produced insightful descriptions and
explanations of Saudi national culture and its effects on administrators in
carrying out their roles in public schools. The findings clarified the
consequence of seeing Saudi school beginning to operate with values which

differ from the vast majority of organizations around the world.

In conclusion, the Saudi government is attempting to come to terms
with the restructuring of the education, and extensive reforms in public
education-the former to comply with the globalization trend. The next decade
will bring social and education changes that will eventually rise to potential
level of modern and western style.

Saudi Arabia is indeed entering a period of turbulence which will,
nevertheless, see the Saudi dynasty come through intact. The dual problems
of reform and development in education sphere should not be
underestimated. It is reasonable to predict that these challenges will be met
with varying degrees of success, and that the Saudi education and society
will be different, and in some areas quite different.

The Saudi version of the bureaucratic vision is reversible and
changeable toward a bureaucratic ideal. Modernization has been an ongoing

reality in Saudi education for well over half a century, but its progress has

156

been delayed by some resistance from within a highly traditional society.
Most people support educational reform and Saudi Arabia’s opening to the
outside world. Saudi administrators showed enthusiasm having an
association a source of professional growth, they also stressed their
willingness to have a greater voice as a key element in the educational
process. Saudi Administrators interpreted their responsibility as stemming
from their culture and from the framework of their educational system and its
instructions and regulations.

Finally, the researcher has attempted to summarize an explanation of
the common organizational structure of the Saudi schools. The conclusion
drawn from the data was that the important elements of Saudi national
culture and its effects on their schools were the structure of bureaucratic
which is high in terms of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and the
strong ties and relationship among their people within school to create and
implement modern bureaucratic as they wished. Such behavior, while
scattered and appearing random, did have a common thread, consistency
which combined that set of events. The consistency hinged on the obligation
of school administration to take, keep, and manage as many teachers and
students as possible. The way to keep them in a state of moderate order
was to maintain a system that allows and encourages administrators to do as
they wish as long as they get along with their people in school that what they

are doing is the best for their education.

157

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative role in the
Saudi public schools. Specifically, the study described national culture in
Saudi schools using Hofstede’s Model, and relative to the description of

Saudi national culture, it explained how school administrators carry out their

 

organizational and educational roles. ‘
Previous chapters began with a comprehensive review of the literature
on culture. The research focused on the diversity of national cultures and
how cultural factors influence the behavior and the organization. The
research also discussed the way to understand the situation through a
conceptual framework. Previous chapters also explained the methodology of
the study, the analysis, and the findings which emerged from the data; the
questionnaire of Hofstede’s (VSM 94) and interviews of Saudi administrators
in Saudi public schools. Then finally, the study reported the findings from an
empirical investigation into the relationship between the national culture and
the role of school leader. Primarily, the relative strengths of five dimensions
of culture in the Saudi setting were described and measured using
Hofstede’s model. Secondarily, the researcher explained how school
administrators carry out their roles in large Saudi public schools, through in-

depth interviews.

158

This chapter briefly provides the practical framework which can be
used to understand the differences between nations and societies. It
provides a summary of the findings and a brief explanation of Saudi national
culture and its effects on the practice of school leaders.

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding National Culture

Weber said, “There is nothing in things themselves to give them
significance.”(Weber, 1947) The conceptual framework adds the significance
and creates meaning for the study. In the present study, a theory was added
and the potential issue was focused. Hofstede’s theory was implemented on
the event and generated key questions. Hofstede’s theory was used to
describe and explain the Saudi national culture.

The theory of Hofstede provides a valuable framework for
investigating all cultures and also for comparing one culture to another.
National culture makes a unique contribution to understanding Saudi
administration policies and practices. National culture is the software of the
mind (Hofstede, 1991), and it is deeply embedded in everyday life and fairly
resistant to change (Newman and Nollen, 1996). The cultural learning or
“mental programming or software of the mind” begins in the family, develops
in schools, and continues in the workplace. The culture of the workplace,
therefore, reflects the larger culture of which it is a part.

A clear understanding of what Hofstede calls “the software of the
mind” is a prerequisite for any attempt to construct and test all cultures, not

just those which are internationally relevant. Hofstede’s research gives a

159

better understanding of organisational cultural differences both cross-national
and within one national culture.

The national culture framework also allows for a level of reconciliation
between the concepts of “culture” and “nation,” as the components of
national culture serve to bind societies together within national boundaries.
Such an approach can provide a deeper understanding of the culture under
study and avoid the misinterpretations which are often the result of
misinformed stereotypes. In this regard, this study’s attempt to develop
reasonably generalizable norms within Saudi schools should provide a basis
for education officials, reformers, and researchers to better conduct research

and develop new roles and appropriate practices.

The purpose of the study was to describe and explain the Saudi
national culture and its effects on organizational and administrative roles in
the Saudi public schools. The conclusion is constructed in terms of the
literature reviewed in chapter two, which represents what we knew before the
conducted the study, plus chapter four which is what the researcher
discovered in his research. It is, in fact, the substance of this chapter which
demonstrates the efforts that have contributed to the sum of what was known
about the subject. This study has added some insights about the
significance of the present study, how it enlarged what was known and

opened up new questions.

160

 

A Summary of the Findings

The purpose of this study was to analyze the Saudi culture along the
five cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede (1991), and its
consequences in the school workplace. A related objective was to explain

how Saudi administrators carry out their organizational and educational roles.

The questionnaire and interviews produced insightful descriptions and
explanations of Saudi national culture and its effects on administrators in
carrying out their roles in public schools. In fact, the results from both the
questionnaire and interviews completed and checked each other in terms of
interpretations and explanations of Saudi national culture. The findings
clarified the consequence of seeing Saudi school beginning to operate with

values which differ from the vast majority of organizations around the world.

In particular, there is a big accord between the participants’
description in the survey and the interviewees’ explanation. This confirmed
that they articulated the real situation and spoke the truth. In addition, the two
methods used in the present study are the triangulation method which
estimated the internal consistency and enhanced reliability. This method
helps to demonstrate validity and open up new perspectives about the
present topic. The use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies together
in one study can be very useful in studies where the detection of trends is
important (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). While a systematic content analysis
was conducted on the transcripts of these sessions, a qualitative summary

was also developed from the data. Together with the quantitative data, the

161

 

qualitative data maintained a clear picture of the very functional role play

during school life.

Research Question 1
How do a select set of Saudi Administrators describe their culture? And how
does their description of Saudi national culture compare to other cultures
studied by Hofstede’s Model?

The five cultural dimensions of Hofstede model have been well
implemented in the present study and generated the following findings:
1.1 Power Distance

Power distance refers to the degree of inequality between a
supervisor and his/her subordinate, and it was derived from questions
addressing perceptions of (a) a supervisor’s style of decision making, (b)
coworkers’ fear to disagree with superiors, and (c) the type of decision
making that subordinates prefer in their supervisor. This study revealed that
people in Saudi schools are high in “power distance” with a score of 64,
which suggests a social distance between superiors and subordinates. This
orientation could be attributed to the Arab traditions which recognize status
hierarchy.
1.2 Individual-Collective

Individualism refers to the type of relationship between the individual
and the collectivity which prevails in a given society and was derived from
questions addressing work goals (e.g., have a job which leaves sufficient

time for personal or family life, have considerable freedom to adapt personal

162

 

approaches to the job). The result of this study for people in Saudi schools

was towards the collectivistic side with a score of 44. They tend to prefer a

 

tight social framework in organizational as well as institutional life (high
collectivism).
1.3 Masculinity

Masculinity-femininity refers to the degree of endorsement of
“masculine” (i.e., advancement and earnings as more important) as opposed
to “feminine” (i.e., interpersonal aspects, rendering service, and the physical
environment as more important) goals. The results place Saudi schools on
the “feminine” side of Hofstede’s dimensions and with a score of 37. People
in Saudi school place greater emphasis on the importance of cooperation,
employment security, and a friendly work place environment. The school
system is more geared to teach social adaptation and a greater degree of
importance is placed on conservation.
1.4 Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree of tolerance for uncertainty
and it was derived from questions addressing (a) rule orientation, (b)
employment stability, and (c) stress. The score of Saudi schools was 61.
Saudis tend to have a high uncertainty avoidance orientation. For example,
people in Saudi schools, as Arabs, do not tolerate persons who deviate from
Arab traditions. They are very loyal to their organizations. Also, they do not
like conflict. However, if they are forced, they resolve disagreements by

authoritarian behavior.

163

1.5 Short-Long Term Orientation

Saudi school administrators placed on the short-term orientation with
a score of 27. Thus, their orientation includes: respect for traditions, social,
and status obligations, small savings, little investment, quick results expected
concern with face, and concern with possessing truth.
Research Question 2
Relative to the elements illustrated in Saudi administrators’ description of
their culture, how do they cany out their organizational and educational
roles?
2.1 In Organizational Level

The findings revealed that national culture affects people thinking
about their school and organization. In Saudi schools organizational
hierarchy reflects cultural inequalities. There are wide salary ranges,
subordinates expect to be directed, the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat,
and privileges and status symbols are expected and popular. Social
inequalities are accepted and those with power expect privileges not
accorded to others. Generally there is high respect for authority. One’s
status and rank are considered to be very important. In addition, politics
includes these aspects: might makes right, powerful have privilege, power
based on family and friends, use of force, change occurs by revolution at the
top, and large income differentiates in society.

In Saudi school contexts, the effects of national culture create tall

organizational structures for most Saudi organizations. The reason is that

164

only those at the top can possibly make decisions; that is their obligation, to
operate as “fathers”. Saudi leaders perceive the role of leaders as a
controller rather than a colleague in term of organization level and structure.

In organizational structure levels, Saudi administrators demonstrate
restriction because they have been affected by national culture. They reflect
both high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance. As a result, Saudi
school culture has more structuring of organizational activities; in school
there are many written rules, and less risk taking. They prefer rigid rules and
view uncertainty as a threat. Conflict is perceived as a threat and individuals
seek to avoid failure. Saudi school culture is resistant to change in some
ways. This shapes their roles in terms of decision making as a universal
aspect of organizational life, communication as the way of interaction with
organization people, planning as an action process to achieve an
organization goals, and motivation as the direction of ongoing behavior.
2.2 In People Level within School

The findings revealed that national culture affects people’s thinking
about people in schools and in their organizations. Saudi schools tend to
have close working relationships, and confined spaces with other people
require regard for others and harmony. Therefore, conflict is minimized. In
addition, the findings demonstrated friendly and open attitudes with people in
schools. They reflect collectivity as a framework for the functioning of school.
Social standing is often determined by the person's group

membership. They find tight social frameworks and emotional dependence

165

on belonging to “the organization.” As a result, this shapes their roles in
terms of cooperation at work, employment security, team work, a friendly
work place environment, exchanging respect among people (good human
relations), and a high collectivism atmosphere. The social construction of
staff agreement in Saudi school contexts affects the quality and
completeness of operations in school. Challenging those constructions
disables schools and inevitably impacts obtaining the right behavior for
school development.

Research Question 3

In constructing school administrators’ roles and in the light of what their
described as Saudi national culture, to what extent do Saudi administrators
implement the modern bureaucratic (Western style) on their organizational
responsibilities?

3.1 Adopting and implementing new educational policies, development
plans, and modern management theories in Saudi schools is strongly
influenced by the prevailing administrative environment and national culture.
The findings of this study indicated that theories developed in a modern
Western setting may be irrelevant or inadequate in the setting of a
developing country like Saudi Arabia. These U.S. originated human resource
practices are unacceptable to Saudi school administration, due partly to
cultural differences between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Saudi

school administration must adapt them to the Saudi culture. This finding is

166

supported by other research and studies (Schellenberg, 1998, Hofstede,
1991, Adler, 1997, Brewster, 1994, and Kiggundu, 1983).
3.2 Saudi officials and educational leaders follow practical ways to
accommodate two systems and construct both traditional culture and modern
culture. First of all, they define and instill values and beliefs through a clear
vision and mission to all people in the education system. They also provide a
document which serves as the main reference in the formulation of ideas and
the main principles that direct education, its policies, plans, objectives, aims,
curricula guidelines, and evaluation system. Change and adaptation is
another way to achieve followers’ self-efficacy.
The Key Contributions

This study makes some separate contributions to auditing literature.
First, it provides an insight into cultural differences and the description of
Saudi national culture by applying Hofstede’s model. It will advance our
theoretical knowledge by considering the cultural dimensions which lead to a
comprehensive set of propositions about people within Saudi schools. This
study is the first attempted replication of Hofstede’s research regarding
national values in the context of Saudi schools. Saudi Arabia was not
including in Hofstede’s study, and this study filled that gap.

Second, the present study assists reformers and leaders in
understanding their employees work practices and understanding certain
behaviors which are shared between people in a particular society.

Understanding Saudi school culture, and its implication toward

167

 

administrators‘ role, influences successful acceptance of new skills and
changes. As the level of influence on world education reforms by traditional
society increases, it will be advantageous for education reformers to obtain a
better conceptualization of how their values relate to their own traditional
value-systems. Saudi culture is still persisting and practiced in everyday life.

Third, it adds new knowledge to school administrators who will be
better able to understand the culture within which they operate. It is extent
our understanding of how and why specific cultural attributes affect the role
and implementation of school leaders in specific culture. Indeed, it adds to a
small but growing body of empirical research concerning unique cultural
values in Saudi education and how they compromise between traditional
bureaucratic and modern bureaucratic education systems.
Limitations

There are a number of inherent limitations involved with a study of this
nature. First, in organizational or cultural studies, the use of self-reported
data is often confounded with a number of biases such as social-desirability
bias (Alreck and Settle 1995). A second limitation might be the sampling plan
employed in this study. On the one hand, gathering data of a reasonable
quality from a Saudi context represented a substantial challenge. On the
other hand, it can easily be argued that the representative nature of the
respondents for each nation relative to the entire population could be

increased. Finally, additional factors regarding the sample, such as race,

168

educational levels, economic status, and regions, may have played a role in
each individual’s response.
Reconunendafions

Five directions for future research are apparent as a result of this
study. First, additional research on Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions and
consequences in the school is needed to gain a better understanding of the
Arab cultural milieu. Second, more cultural research is needed to look at
similarities and differences in the application of leadership and organization
theories and managerial concepts in different cultures. Third, national culture
research is needed to explore the role of transnational leadership to increase
efficacy in Arab/Saudi institutions. Fourth, compatibility studies are needed
between bureaucratic culture and democratic culture. Finally, the effect of
Saudi national culture on the performance of teacher in classrooms is

needed.

169

 

APPENDICES

170

 

APPENDIX A:
VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994 QUESTIONNAIRE

Please think of an ideal job - disregarding your present job, if you have
one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to (please
circle one answer in each line across):

1 = of utmost importance

2 = very important

3 = of moderate importance

4 = of little importance

5 = of very little or no importance

1. Have sufficient time for your personal or family life
1 2 3 4 5

2. Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting,
adequate work space, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5

3. Have a good working relationship with your direct superior
1 2 3 4 5

4. Have security of employment
1 2 3 4 5

5. Work with people who cooperate well with one another
1 2 3 4 5

6. Be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decisions
1 2 3 4 5

7. Have an opportunity for advancement to higher level jobs
1 2 3 4 5

8. Have an element of variety and adventure in the job
1 2 3 4 5

In your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (please
circle one answer in each line across):

9. Personal steadiness and stability1 2 3 4 5
10. Thrift 1 2 3 4 5

11. Persistence(perseverance) 1 2 3 4 5

171

12. Respect for tradition 1 2 3 4 5
13. How often do you fee nervous or tense at work?

never
seldom
sometimes
usually
always

WPP’NP‘

14. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express
disagreement with their superiors?

very seldom
seldom
sometimes
frequently
very frequently

919.0197"

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements? (please circle one answer in each line across):

1 = strongly agree

2 = agree
3 = undecided
4 = disagree

5 = strongly disagree

15. Most people can be trusted 1 2 3 4 5
16. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most

questions that subordinates may raise about their work
1 2 3 4 5

17. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses

should be avoided at all cost
1 2 3 4 5

18. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good
1 2 3 4 5

19. A school's or organization's rules should not be broken -not even when
the employee thinks it is in the school's best interest
1 2 3 4 5

20. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault
1 2 3 4 5

172

Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes):
21. Are you:
1. male
2. female
22. How old are you:
. 20-24
. 25—29
. 30-34
. 35-39
. 40-49
50-59
60 or over

Ngmth—x

23. What is the highest level of education you have?

1. Graduated from 1-3 years college

2. Bachelor

3. Master

4. Doctorate

5. other (please specify: .......................... )

24. What is your current job title or position?

1. Superintendent

2. Deputy Superintendent
3. Principal

4. Asst. Principal

5. Supervisor

6. Other (please specify)

( .......................... )

173

APPENDIX B:
INTERVIEW GUIDE

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAUDI NATIONAL CULTURE
AND THE ROLE OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IN SAUDI
PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In this study, two methods are conducted to achieve the
purpose of this study which describe and explain the relationship
between Saudi national culture and the role of school
administrator in Saudi public schools. Specifically, the first method
is a survey in which the researcher uses Hofstede’s Values
Survey Module to determine and describe the national culture of
Saudi school administrators. The second method is in-person
qualitative interviewing in which the researcher poses questions to
people in a way designed to ascertain and explore their views on
the role of school administrators in their own terms and framework
of understanding.

The interview section will be relied on the five dimensions of
national culture which described in the previous section (survey).
The interview section will explain two things; first, national culture
affects people thinking about their ORGANIZATION. Organizing
always demands the answering of two questions: (1) who has the
power to decide what? And (2) what rules or procedures will be
followed to attain the desired ends? The answer to the first
question is influenced by cultural norms of power distance; the
answer to the second question, by cultural norms about
uncertainty avoidance.

Second, national culture affects people thinking about PEOPLE in
organizations, rather than about organizations themselves. This is
relied on three dimensions, individualism, masculinity, and term
orientation.

174

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES

Current job title or position: ( .................................... ).
Education level: ( ................................... )
Sex: ( ............... ). Age: ( ......... ).

1. ORGANIZATION:
Q. When you make a new decision what you expect from your subordinates?
And what they expect from you?
Q. How you would handle a positive or a negative criticism by your
supervisor.
Q. To what extent you are consulted by your direct superior in his/her
decisions?
Q. How important is the working relationship between you and your
superiors, and with your direct superior? Why?
Q. What ideas would you suggest for maintaining good relationships with
your superiors?
Q. How can you describe the current working relationship between
subordinates and superiors?
Q. Do you think that administrators, who communicate more, whatever the
means, tend to be more successful than those that communicate less?
Q. Would you prefer to use face-to-face and informal communication with
you subordinates? Or you rely exclusively on written communication to
develop relationships?

Q. Do you feel there is anxiety and tension at work? What is the reason
behind that?

Q. How to you handles pressure on the job?

Q. How do you deal with management in the situation where you disagree
with them?

Q. Do you see competition between workers as healthy or harmful in the
workplace, and why?

Q. Do you think you have much potential to motivate your staff? Describe
how do you motivate your staff within your districts?

Q. What is your general perspective toward training, and what its effects on
staff and work?

Q. In your school, do you think you having work in a well-defined job situation
where the requirements are clear?

Q. Do you believe in bending the rules at work? Why?

QEOPOLE IN ORGANIZATIQE

Q. What do you consider are acceptable working conditions according to
your standards?

Q. What are the things you need to ease the school-work and make it more
enjoyable?

175

Q. In your case how would you describe human and physical working
conditions?

Q. Have you ever been in a situation where the security of your employment
was an issue, and how did you handle that. If you have not been in that
situation, how would you handle it if it arises?

Q. What kind of working atmosphere do you most like to be involved in?

Q. Do you think you have an element of variety and adventure in the job?

Q. Do you feel that you have challenging tasks to do, from which you can get
a personal sense of accomplishment?

Q. In a real situation where you had to coordinate with other fellow
employees to complete a project, to what extent you are involved in such
sfluafion?

Q. In your school, do you have an opportunity for helping other people?

Q. As a school administrator, do you have an opportunity for advancement of
higher level jobs?

Q. To what extent you have an opportunity for high earnings?

Q. Do you think you can have considerable to adopt your own approach to
the job? Why?

Q. Do you feel you work with people who cooperate well with one another?
Q. To what extent you make a real contribution to the success of your
school? And how do you deal with failures?

Q. To what extent you think you will continue working for your school/district?
Why?

Q. In your school, to what extent you think that relationships among
employee are characterized by openness and mutual trust?

Q. Do you consider yourself to be prudent, and why?

Q. Do you live in an area desirable to you and your family?

Q. How do you see yourself achieving your goals you mentioned earlier? To
what extent you insist to accomplish your goals?

ENDING: Thank you for your participation in this study.

176

APPENDIX C:
CONSENT FORM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Description of the project:

Differences between nations and societies make it critical to understand how
cultural factors influence the role of school leaders and the public school. Adopting
and implementing new educational policies, development plans, and modern
management theories in Saudi school are strongly influenced by the prevailing
administrative environment and culture

Unfortunately, our current understanding of how and why specific cultural
attributes affect the role and implementation of school leaders is very limited. This
study seeks to advance our theoretical knowledge by considering the cultural
dimensions which lead to a comprehensive set of propositions about School
leader’s role in Saudi schools. There is a very narrow research base concerning the
cultural values in Saudi Educational system and an even narrower one focused
upon the specific national culture and its relationship to the role of Saudi school
leader in public schools.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to describe and explain the
relationship between Saudi national culture and the role of school leader in Saudi
public school. Specifically, the researcher will describe national culture using
Hofstede’s dimensions model. Then he will explain the concept of role and how it
operates in public schools in terms of communication, decision-making, and
motivation.

Time reguired:
The amount of time may vary, but the onetime interview should take between 45-60

minutes.

Voluntar_'y participation:

The subject knows that helshe is voluntarily participating in this interview. The
subject may choose not to participate at all, may refuse to answer certain questions,
or may discontinue the interview at any time.

Confidentiality and anonymity:

All results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain
anonymous in any report of research findings. Per request and within these
restrictions, results may be made available to subject.

Your signature signifies you understand the purpose of the interview and your rights
as a participant You are being asked to voluntarily participate in an interview with
the researcher who is attempting to answer the question, “What is the effects of
cultural values on the role of the school leader”.

Consent statement and signature:

I, . give my consent to be interviewed by Saleh Alshaya

on (date) regarding my perspective on the effects of cultural values
on the role of the school leader in Saudi public schools.

Participant‘s Signature: ...............................

177

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT

STUDY TITLES CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES: THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SAUDI NATIONAL CULTURE AND THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADER
IN SAUDI PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Dear School Leader,

I would be most appreciative if you would take a few moments to complete the
website survey on the address below. Because your response is crucial to the
value of this survey, your responses will affects decisions made for the next
generations of school leaders in Saudi Arabia.

The basic purpose of this study is to gather objective data about the relationship
between Saudi national culture and the role of school leader in Saudi public school.
Specifically, the researcher will describe national culture using Hofstede’s
dimensions model (VALUES SURVEY MODULE 94). Then he will explain how
school administrators carry out their roles in the light of Saudi national culture in
public schools.

These data are important in improving public education both at district and beyond.
Often, decisions made by governmental and ministry of education departments to
develop new programs, or to support present ones, are based in part on the data
developed from this study.

I want to assure you that the law requires us to keep your answers private and
confidential, and prohibits us from releasing information that would identify any
individual’s responses. In other words, your privacy will be protected to the extent
possible by law.

If you would like to participate in this study, please visit the website of computer
center on (www. ) and complete the questionnaire entitled VSM 94.
You indicate your voluntary participation in this research by completing and
returning this website survey.

If you have any questions about the research, please call me at (517)349-5809 or
email me at alshayas@msu.edu . You may also call: The Chair of UCRIHS: Ashir
Kumar, M.D., Chair’s Telephone: (517) 355-2180 e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and I appreciate your
participation in this study.

Best wishes,

Saleh Alshaya
MSU Doctoral Student

178

 

APPENDIX D:
(UCRIHS)
APPLICATION FOR INITIAL REVIEW
(and 5 yr. renewal)
APPROVAL OF A PROJECT
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair, Ashir Kumar, MD, Interim Chair
246 Administration Building, Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
PHONE (517) 355-2180 FAX (517) 353-2976
E-Mail - UCRIHS@msu.edu
WEB SITE - http:/Mww.msu.eduluser/ucrihsl
Office Hours: Mon-Fri. (8:00 A.M.-Noon & 1:00-5:00 PM.)
DIRECTIONS: Please complete the questions on this application using the instructions and
definitions found on the attached sheets. If not attached, these materials are available at
http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs/ucrihs instruction fonn.htm.

REQUIRED IF APPLICABLE

 

 

 

 

1. Responsible Project Investigator:
(MSU Faculty or staff supervisor)

Name: Dr. Philip A. Cusick

 

Social Security #:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department: Educational
Administration

College: College of Education
.. 418 Erickson Hall

Mailing .

Address: East Lansrng, Ml 48824

Phone 355-4539

Fax: 353-6393

Email: cusickpa@pilot.msu.edu

2. Seconda_ry Investigator:
("Students Must Provide
Student ID#**)

Name: Saleh S. Alshaya

 

 

 

Student ID#: or SS# A2234816
6

Depart Educational

ment: Administration

 

College: College of Education

 

Mailing 1690 Fifth Ave. Apt. A3

 

Address Okemos, Ml 48864

 

Phone: 349-5809

 

Fax: 349-5809

 

Email: alsha as ilot.msu.edu

 

I accept responsibility for conducting the proposed

Research In accordance with the protections of
human

subjects as specified by UCRIHS, including the
supervision of faculty and student co-lnvestlgators.

SIGN HERE:

 

Note: Without signature, application can 953 be
processed

 

 

 

Additional Investigator lnforrnation

3. Name:

 

Student ID#: or SS#

 

4. Name:

 

5. Name:

 

 

UCRIHS Correspondence: Copies of correspondence will be sent to the primary and secondary
investigators only. If you would like additional investigators to receive correspondence, please provide

further address information on a separate page.

6. Title CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES:
of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAUDI NATIONAL CULTURE
AND THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADERS IN SAUDI PUBLIC

Project

SCHOOLS

 

APPENDIX E:

Letter of Phone Interview Conformation

TO: NAME HERE
FROM: SALEH ALSHAYA

RE : PHONE INTERVIEW

Dare Name,

Thanks once again for helping me out with my study of the effects of Saudi
national culture on the school administrators and on their organizational
roles.

One the next page you will find the questions you can think about and jot
answers to in preparation for our phone conversation at (TIME AND DATE).

Pleas keep in mind that:
0 Your responses will remain confidential,
0 Your honest and candid answers will greatly enhance the quality of
the study’s results,
. The interview should take no more than 40 minutes of your time.

Feel free to contact me if you would like further information or question.
After all, I owe you one! I can be reached at my e-male: alshavas@msg.edu

I’ll be talking to you soon,

Saleh Alshaya

180

APPENDIX F:

Descriptive Statistics

Age * Sex Cross-tabulation

Sex
Male Female
20-24 1 3
25-29 10 11
30-34 26 22

35-39 22 35
40-49 18 26
50-59 3 2

60 and over
99

 

Age * Education Cross-tabulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Total
1-3 Bachelor Master Doctorate Other
years
coma
Ag 20-24 1 2 1 4
25-29 3 16 1 1 21
30-34 5 39 2 2 48
35-39 3 40 7 7 57
40-49 2 32 4 3 3 44
50-59 3 1 1 5
60 and over 1 1
Total 17 130 14 5 14 180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181

 

Sex * Education Cross-tabulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Total
1 -3 Bachelor Master Doctorate Other
years
college
Sex Male 8 59 9 3 2 81
Female 9 71 5 2 1 2 99
Total 17 130 14 5 14 180
Sex * Job title Cross-tabulation
Job title Total
Super- Deputy Principal Asst. Super Other 7.00
lntende Superint principle -vlsor
nt endent
Sex Male 2 2 23 21 13 9 10 81
Female 16 25 22 15 21 99
Total 2 2 39 46 35 24 31 180
Sex * Age Cross-tabulation
Age Total
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50-59 60
and
over
Sex Male 1 10 26 22 18 1 81
Female 3 1 1 22 35 26 99
Total 4 21 48 57 44 1 180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

182

 

 

 

General Descriptive Statistics of Respondents

To VSM 94 Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent
Male 81 45%
GENDER Female 99 55%
20-24 4 2.2%
AGE 25-29 21 1 1.7%
30-34 48 26.7%
35-39 57 31.7%
40-49 44 24.4%
50-59 5 2.8%
Three-year 1 7 9.4%
coflege
EDUCAT'ON Bachelor 1 30 72.2%
Master 24 13.3%
Doctorate 9 5%
Superintendent 9 5%
Deputy 12 6.7%
JOB Superintendent
Principal 44 24.4%
OCCUPATION Asst. Principal 54 30%
Supervisor 45 25%
Consultant 7 3.8%
Other 9 5%

 

183

 

A SUMMARY OF SAUDI NATIONAL CULTURE

Structure
Status
of"Face"

Role of

Control
Risk

Reward
EthicsNalues
Concern

Valued Rewards

Focus
Basis for Motivation

Hierarchical

Face
Not Possible

Seen as to follow
Seen as
lnflexible

Avoid

Based
Particularism
Look after

Qual of Life
for

 

Service to Others

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Nancy J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior
3e. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

AI-Awaad, K. (1998). The Future of Education in the Kingdom of Saudi
ArabiaNision and indications. Ministry of Education, Riyadh. Saudi
Arabia.

AI-Gilani, A. & Filor, S. (1997). Policy and Practice: Envirgnmental Policies in
Saudi Arabia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
V40, 775-788.

Ali, A. (1986) flblic Managers: A_re They Different? A Study of Managerial
Belief Systems in Iraq." International Review of Administrative
Science, 52, 1 267-78.

Ali, A. (1990). Mamgement Theory in a Transitional Society: The Arabs’
Experience. International Studies of Management and Organization,
20, 3: 7-35

AL-Jeaid, K. (1991). Managerial Behavior in Saudi Arabia: Utilizing the
Temporal Factor in Le analvsis of Managerial Behavior (Time
Management) Ph.D. The Florida State University.

Allwood, CM. (1997). The function and handling of research problems in the
social sciences. Science Studies, 10, 50-73.

Alreck, P.& Settle, R. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook (2nd Edition),

Homewood, IL: Irwin.

 

Anderson, G. (1996). Performance Appraisal. in Towers, Brian (ed.). BE
Hancfimok of Hamn Resource Managemeria"d Ed.) Blackwell
Publishers, Ltd. Oxford, UK.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1985). Introgpction to ReseaLdr in
Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

186

Auyeung, P. & Sands, J. (1996). A cross cultural study oLthe learningtvle of
accounting students. Accounting and Finance. Nov 1996. v 36, 2,
p.261-274.

Badaway, Mahmud R. (1979). Managerial attitudes and need orientation of
mid Eastern executives: An empirical cross-cultural analysis. Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, August, Atlanta, GA.

Bajunid, l. A. (1996). Preliminarv Mtions of inaigenous perspectives of
agucational management: The evolving Malaysian experience.
Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 50-73.

Ball, S. (1990): Politics and Policv Making in Education, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, UK

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New
York: Free Press.

Bass, BM. (1997). Does the transactionaI-transformational leadership

paracflgm transcend organizational and national boundaries?
American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bell, D. (1987) Production and Distribution wit_hin Hierarchically Structured

 

 

Groups. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society, 16, 1&2 : 96-
124.

Bjerke, B. and AI-Meer, A. (1993), “gilt_ure’s Consequences: Management in
Saudi Arabia,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 14,
2, pp. 30-35.

Black, J., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross cultural training effectiveness: A
review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of
Management Review, 15(1), 113-136.

Blomberg, J. (1998). Mflhs about Projects. Nerenius. Stockholm, Sweden.

Blumer, H. (1962). Societv g svrrybolic interaction. p. 179-192 in Arnold

 

Rose (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co.
Bochner, 8., dc Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance

individualism/collectivism and job-related attitudes in a culturally

 

 

187

giverse worLgro_up. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233-
257.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1998). Qflative research for education: An
Introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bond, M. H. (1987) Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Fug
Dimensions of (Maya, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-
164.

Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989) Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif.

Brewster, C. (1994) Towards a "European" Mo_del of Human Resource
Management, Journal of lntemational Business Studies, 25, 1-21.

Brown, M. P. (1996) International Performance Appraisal: Transitional
Process with fiCross-Cultural Considerations, In Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Brunswick, E. (1955) Epresentative Design and Probabilistic Thaorv in a
Eanctional Psychology, Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.

Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961) The Management of Innovatlm, Tavistock,
London, UK.

Carrol, M. (1982). “_Cult_ure” in J. Freeman, ed. Introduction to Sociology: A
Canadian Focus. Prentice-Hall. Ontario, Canada, p. 19-40.

Cheng, K. M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in
ed_ucational achinistration. In K. C. Wong & K. M. Cheng (Eds),
Educational leadership and change: An international perspective (pp.
87-104). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Cummings, T. and Worley, C. (1997). Organization [Levelopment & Change.
6“1 Edition. South-Westem College Publishing

Dean, J. P. & Whyte, W.F. (1958). How Do vouf know if the informant is
telling the truth? Human Organization, 17, 34-38.

Dennison, D.,(1990). Cogporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness,
Wiley, New York, NY.

188

 

Denzin, K. (1970). Sociological Methods: A Sourcem. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing company.

Diallo, M. (1996). Traditional Values and MocLernConcew

Dorfman, P.W. & Howell, JP. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture &
Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited. In E. G. McGoun
(Ed.), Advances in lntemational Comparative Management, Vol. 3,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 127-149.

Durkheim, E. (1984) The Rules of Sociological Method, Free Press of
Glencoe, New York, NY.

Evans, Paul A. L. (1992). Management development as glue technology.
Human Resource Planning, 15: 85105.

Galegher, J. & Robert, E. (1994). Commter—mediated communication for
intellectu_al teaanork: An experiment in group writing. lnfonnation
System Research: a Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences.
p.1 10-138.

Geertz, C. (1993). The Intemretation of Cultures. London, Fontana.

Geertz,C. (1973). The Interpretatjon of Cultures, Fontana Press, New York.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership
protogpes. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 121-134.

Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M., & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational
Administration as a social process th_aorv. research, practice. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.

Glaser, G. & Strauss, A. (1970). The Discovery of Ground Theom. Chicago:
Aldine.

Goetz and LeCompte. (1980). Ethnpgraphy and Qualitative Design; M. Q.
Patton, Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
1980)

Haberrnas, J. (1968).The Structural Transformation of the Pu_blic Sphere,

 

trans. Thomas Burger and Fredrick Lawrence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hallinger, P. (1995). Culture and lea_dership: Developing an international
grspfiective in educational administration. UCEA Review, 36(1), 3-7.

189

 

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Cogporation: A
Manifestor for Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishers, Ltd.
London, UK.

Hansen, G. and Wemerfelt, B., (1989). Determinants of Firm Perforrflnce:
The Relative Impact of Economic and Organizational Factors,
Strategic Management Journal, V. 10 No. 3, pp. 399-411.

Harris, P. & Moran, R. (1987). Managing Cultural Differences, 2"d ed, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, TX.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation. leadership, and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad? In Dennis W. Organ, editor, The applied
psychology of work behavior. Boston: Irwin. 12654.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An

independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture‘s conseguences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and Ieaming.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301 -320.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: S_oftwa__re of thamind
London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Values Survey Module: Manual. University of Limburg.
The Netherlands: Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation.

Hofstede, G., Bond, M. and Luk, C. (1993). Individual Perceptions of

Organizational Cultures: A Methodological Treatise on Levels of
Analysis, Organization Studies, V. 14 No.4, pp. 483-503.

Hofstede, Geert. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories,
Academy of Management Executive, 7(1): 81-93.

Hofstede,G.H. (1983).The Cultural Relativig of Organizational Practices and

Theories, Journal of lntemational Business Studies, Fall 1983, pp75-
89.

190

 

Hofstede,G.H. (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of Mijnd, New
York: McGraw Hill, London.

Hofstede,G.H. and Bond, M.H. (1988).The Confucius Connection: From
genuil Roots to Economic Growth, in Organization Dynamics, pp4-
21.

Jackson, Susan & Randall Schuler. (1995). Understanding human resource
mement in thj context of organizations and their environmtmt.
Applied Review of Psychology, 46: 237-264.

Jung, D.I., Bass, B.M., & Sosik, J.J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture:
A theoretical consid_e&tion of transformational leadership and
collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (4), 3-18.

 

Kiggundu, MN, (1983) Task Interdependence and Job Design: Test of a
Theory", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,Vol. 31,
pp. 145-172

Kim, Y. and Gudykunst, W. (1987). Cross-cultural Adaptation: Cprrent
Approaches, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Universal catemries of cu_ltpre. In S. Tax (Ed.),
Anthropology today (pp. 304-320). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kolb, D. (1976). Learning SMe Inchntory Ma_ny_aj. McBer. Boston, USA.

Komin, S. (1990). Psychology of the Thai People: Values and Behavioral
Patterns. Bangkok, Research Center, National Institute of
Development Administration (NIDA), p. 133.

Kowalski, Theodore J., and Reitzug, Ulrich C.(1993). Contemporam School
Administration: An Introdyetion. New York: Longman.

Lawrence, P. (1994). "In another country" orjthe relativization of
managment Iearnim. Management Learning, 25 (4), 543-561.

Lewis, R. (1997). When Culture Clash. Svenska Ledarskap AB, Sweden.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inguim. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Lunenburg, F. C. (1995). PrincmaleLConwpts and Applications. Prentice

191

Luthans, Fred, Dianne B. Welsh & Stuart A. Rosenkrantz. (1993). what do
Russian managers really do? An observational study with
comparisons to US. managers. Journal of lntemational Business
Studies, 24(4): 741-61.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing gualitative research. Newbury
Park: Sage

Maslow, A. (1954). Motiva_tion and Personality. Harper & Row. New York.

Maududi, A. (1967). flamic Wav flit; AI-Faisal Printing, Kuwait.

Measor, L. (1985). Interviewing: A Strategy in Qualitative Research, in
Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods, ed. R. G.
Burgess. Philadelphia: Falmer.

Miles, M & Huberman, A (1994). Qualitative data analvsis : Ap expanded
source book (2nd edition), Thousand Oakes: Sage

Miner, J. B. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Performance and Prodpctivitv.
2"d ed. New York: McGraw-hill.

Ministry of Education (2001). Annual Report. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Miskel, C. (1982). Motivation in educational organizations. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 18,3 p 65-88.

Mole,J. (1990). Mind Yogr Manners. The Industrial Society.

Muna, F. (1980). The Arab Executive, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.

Nasierowski, W. & Coleman, D. (1997). Limits to the transfer of managerial
techniggesiessons learned from unsuccessful adoption of Japanese
managerial technigues in North Awgmmfiam
@193. International Journal of Management, forthcoming.

Newman, Karen L. & Stanley D. Nollen. (1996). W
Wm. Journal of
International Business Studies, 27(4): 753-78.

Olie,R. (1995). The "Culture" Factor in Personnel a_ndQ_r_rgan_ization Policies.
in lntemational Human Resource Management, edited by Harzing,A-
W. and Ruysseveldt,J.V., SAGE, London.

192

 

O'Reilly, C. (1989). Cogporations, Culture and Commitment: Motigtionfld
Social Control in Organizations, Califomia Management Review, V. 31
No. 4, pp. 9-25.

Parsons, R. et al. (1994). Experimental approaches to the study of people-
plant relationships. In: People-plant relationships: setting research
priorities. Haworth Press, New York.

Rohitratana, K. (1998). Implementagion in Thailand: Social and Cultural
leage_s. Ph.D. Thammasat University, Thailand.

Schein, E. (1986). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco and London.

Schein, E.H.(1996). Three cultures of management: Lhe key to organizational
learning, Sloan Management Review, Fall, p.9-20, 1996.

Schein,E.H. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture,
in Sloan Management Review, v25n2, pp3-16.

Schellenberg, T. R. (1998). Modern A_rchives: Principles and Technigues.
Chicago, ILL : The Society of American Archivists. 247 p. (Archival
classics reprints) [Originally published by the University of Chicago
Press in 1956. Includes bibliographical references and index.]

Schneider, S. (1988). National vs. Cogporate Culture: Implications for Human
Resogrce Management, Human Resource Management, V. 27, pp.
231-46.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in
A__c_t_im. Basic Books, Inc.

Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E., Slocum, J. W. & Jackofsky, E. (1996)
Managing Human Resogrcee in Mexico: A Weeding,
Business Horizons, 39, 55-61.

Scollon, R. & S.W. Scollon. (1995). W. Blackwell.
Oxford. (270 s.)

Shackleton, Viv. J. & Abbas H. Ali.(1990). Were:
A test of the Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
21: 109-18.

193

 

Smircich, L. & Calas, M. (1995). _Critical Pegpectives on Organization and
Management Theory. Aldershot : Brookfield, Vt., U.S.A. : Dartmouth

Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretigl
consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cm.
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (4), 3-18.

Sparrow, P.R. & Budhwar, P. (1997). Competition and Change: Mapping the
Indian HRM Reciflgainst World Wide Patterns. Journal of Worid
Business 32: 224-242.

Spickard, P. (1996). Qhristians in a Multicultural America. Christian Scholar’s
Review, V: (4),p. 478-490

Stark, R. (1995). The Organizational Age in Sociology, 3'd Edition

Stening, B., (1979). Promems in Cross-owl Contact: A Literature Review,
lntemational Journal of Intercultural Relations, V. 3, pp. 269-313.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996) Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper-
Collins, New York, NY.

Tayeb, M. H. (1996) The management of a multicultural workforce. New
York: Wiley.

Tesch, R. (1990). _Q_ualitative Reseam. New York, Falmer Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Mm and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multi method probes of
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

Weber, Max (1958). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. New York,
Oxford University Press

Weber, Max. (1947). The theory of Social aadgconomic Organization. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Wong, KC. (1996, December). Wmensions of school
leaders. Paper presented at the meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation Educational Leadership Centers, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

194

 

Wright, J. C. & Mischel, W. (1987). A conflional approach to dispositional
constrgcts: the loca_lpre_dictapilitv of social behavior. Journal of
Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 1159-1177

Zhu, C. J. & Dowling, P. J. (1994) The Impact of the _Economic System Upap
Huma_n_ Resogrce Management Practices in China, Human Resource
Planning, 17, 1-21.

Zikmund, W. G. (1994). firsiness Research Methods, Dryden Press, Fort
Worth, Texas.

195