The impact of culture on Swedish leadership and its implications for doing business internationally

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / GLOSSAR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Definition
1.2 Goal of Thesis
1.3 Structure of Thesis
1.4 Method
1.5 Gender Declaration

2 THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE
2.1 Definitions of Culture
2.2 Accord of Definitions
2.3 Culture Models
2.3.1 Levels of Culture
2.3.2 Iceberg Model
2.3.3 Hofstede’s Culture Onion
2.4 Commonalities within the Culture Models
2.5 Cultural Relativism

3 CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION
3.1 Three H’s of cultural globalization
3.1.1 Homogenization scenario
3.1.2 Heterogenization scenario
3.1.3 Hybridization scenario
3.2 Three paradigms on the relationship between global and local cultures ...
3.3 Summary

4 DIALECTIC APPROACH TO ANALYZING CULTURE
4.1 Analysis of Sweden based on 4 aspects of the SIMM
4.1.1 Sweden
4.1.2 History
4.1.3 Political System
4.1.4 Religions
4.1.5 Perception of Law
4.2 The Swedish Culture Onion
4.3 Hofstede’s Dimensions
4.3.1 Power Distance Index (PDI)
4.3.2 Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
4.3.3 Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
4.3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
4.3.5 Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Orientation (LTO)
4.3.6 Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR)
4.4 Principle of Yin-Yang
4.5 Summary on Hofstede and Yin-Yang

5 LEADERSHIP
5.1 Competing Values Framework
5.2 Swedish culture on leadership styles
5.2.1 GLOBE Study
5.2.2 CVF on Sweden

6 CONCLUSION
6.1 Limitations
6.2 Outlook

LIST OF REFERENCES

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Different Levels in Mental Programming, source: (developed by author based on Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov 1991, p.6)

Figure 2: Schein Model, developed by author, source: (Schein 2004, p.26)

Figure 3: The Iceberg Model, developed by author, source: (based on Hall 1977, picture: DeMarco 2015)

Figure 4: The Culture Onion, developed by author, source: (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 1991, p.8)

Figure 5: Culture Onion of Sweden, developed by author, source: (Lewis 2006, p. 285) .

Figure 6: Yin-Yang symbol, developed by author, source: (Maxwell 2018)

Figure 7: Competing Values Framework, developed and adapted by author, source: (Quinn 1988, p.86)

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of three H’s, developed and adapted by author, source: (Hall 2003 and Pieterse 2015)

Table 2: GLOBE Ranking Sweden, developed and adapted by author, source: (Koopman, Den Hartog and Konrad 1999)

Table 3: GLOBE Leadership Ranking Sweden, developed and adapted by author, source: (Globe Project 2004)

Table 4: Human Relations Model, source: developed by author on the basis of (Quinn 1988)

Table 5: Internal Process Model, source: developed by author on the basis of (Quinn 1988)

Table 6: Rational Goal Model, source: developed by author on the basis of (Quinn 1988)

Table 7: Open System Model, source: developed by author on the basis of (Quinn 1988)

List of Abbreviations / Glossar

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Acknowledgements

I would like to express gratitude to all persons who supported me during the writing process of this thesis. I am especially grateful to my parents who always support me, no matter what. Without your encouragement this would not have been possible.

Also, I would like to express a warm thank you to my supervisor, Ms. Mag. Monika Pleschinger, who contributed her time to answering my questions during the development of this thesis, as well as for her constructive feedback and guidance throughout this thesis.

Finally, particular thanks are owed to my friends who always supported me in times when I did not know how to proceed with my thesis. A special thanks to my proofreader. Thank you, Story for helping me refine my thesis.

Executive Summary

This thesis aims at understanding how culture influences the leadership style of Swedish managers and the implications that this has for other countries in doing business with them. Additionally, this thesis seeks to understand which impact globalization has on cultures and how this might influence national identity.

In order to grasp the versatile field of culture, this thesis starts with finding a generally accepted definition for this multilayered topic. After that, it examines three culture models by Schein, Hall and Hofstede, three well-known scholars in the field of culture, who should help graphing culture by the means of their models. This thesis conceptualizes the similarities within the mentioned culture models. As for any country analyzation it is important to understand that no one is to judge another culture, therefore this thesis will briefly introduce the topic of cultural relativism in order to prevent any misconceptions.

As mentioned, this thesis aims at understanding how globalization is influencing cultures. Therefore, this paper elaborates on three different scenarios on how globalization influences the cultural identity. These so-called three H’s of cultural globalization are analyzed to identify how globalization might change the cultural world view.

The following chapter, which focuses on analyzing Swedish culture, firstly introduces Sweden by means of the SIMM and Hofstede’s culture onion and secondly by using a dialectic approach to analyzing culture, namely Hofstede’s dimensions and the Yin-Yang principle. This mutuality of concepts shall help understanding the complexity of a culture analysis.

Within the penultimate chapter, the topic of leadership is generally defined and Swedish leadership style analyzed by the GLOBE study, followed by a selected leadership model, the Competing Values Framework. This model is firstly defined and in a next step merged with previous findings from Hofstede’s Dimensions, the GLOBE study and the Yin-Yang principle. The combination of these models shall help answering the main research questions.

In the last chapter, the author summarizes the main findings by answering the research questions. To conclude this thesis, the limitations of this work are outlined, as well as possible future research.

1 Introduction

In an interconnected business world, culture plays a significant role. Not only how business is embedded in a certain culture but more importantly how the culture influences the international business conduct.

Looking at recent data from the Global Competitiveness Report of 2017/2018, Sweden is ranked place 7th worldwide and considered economically highly competitive (Schwab 2017). Multinational companies like Volvo, SKF, Electrolux, H&M, IKEA and others operate successfully on a global scale. The strategic importance of leadership in globally operating companies is of utmost importance to ensure the group’s viability (Caligiuri and Lazarova 2001). May it be for good or worse, miscommunication and cultural misunderstanding are often reasons for conflict (Hampden- Turner and Tropenaars 2011).

Cultural models by Hofstede, Hall, Trompenaars and others are nowadays often referred to as simplifications of culture (Fang 2003). Therefore, this thesis will use a dialectic approach on how to analyze Swedish culture by firstly using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and in another step, the principle of Yin-Yang to help understand the paradoxical nature of culture. Thus, this thesis will also elaborate on the effect of globalization on culture and consequently how this affects business.

Different leadership styles influence how a company acts on a global stage (House, Hanges and Ruiz-Quintanilla 1997). Therefore, this thesis will have a closer look on how culture influences leadership behavior. The competing values framework will be used for analyzing and understanding how Swedish managers are leading their businesses.

The aim of this thesis is to provide the reader with an insight on how culture influences the managing style in Sweden and how this impacts international business conduct.

1.1 Problem Definition

A multinational corporation is by definition “an enterprise operating in several countries but managed from one (home) country. Generally, any company or group that derives a quarter of its revenue from operations outside of its home country is considered a multinational corporation [...]” (Business Dictionary 2018). This suggests that different cultural backgrounds meet which might result in conflict. In order to prevent companies in doing so, this thesis seeks to provide a coherent work to tackle issues that might occur when doing business with Swedish managers.

Research Question 1:

Extensive literature review has been carried out based on Hofstede’s dimensions, however as critics claim, these dimensions do not consider the complexity of culture’s nature but rather seek to simplify it (McSweeney 2000; Redpath 1997). As this approach has been the basis of many other works, this thesis stands out by using a rather new way of analyzing culture, a dialectic approach, the so-called Yin-Yang principle. As previous literature mainly focuses on one culture model to describe the effects of culture on leadership, this thesis’s main mission is to provide a broad spectrum to find similarities and draw an overall conclusion. The findings of this approach should help answering the main research question:

“How does Swedish culture influence the leadership style of Swedish managers?”

Research Question 2:

Furthermore, throughout the advent of the 21st century, globalization has played an increasingly important role, therefore this thesis seeks to understand which possible impacts this might have on culture (Hassi and Storti 2012). The findings of this should find answers to the second research question:

“How does globalization influence culture?”

Research Question 3:

Last but not least, by combining all previous findings on culture, globalization, leadership and the applications on Sweden, this thesis seeks to understand:

“What implications does the Swedish leadership style have on doing business internationally?”

1.2 Goal of Thesis

This thesis primarily aims at outlining the effects of Swedish culture on the Swedish leadership style and consequently how this affects the overall business conduct. This in turn, should give the reader a piece of advice how to work effectively together with Swedish managers without the common cultural misunderstandings that often lead to delay, frustration, demotivation and loss of money and resources on both sides.

1.3 Structure of Thesis

This paper is divided into six chapters. The first chapter, the introduction gives a general overview of this thesis and should provide the reader with a first insight on what is presented within this paper. The following chapter focuses on the topic of culture and gives firstly a general overview and secondly provides the reader with a basic understanding about the main concepts of culture models and how this will be further applied throughout the course of this thesis. The third chapter concerns itself with globalization and how it affects culture by introducing three different scenarios. Followed by the application of the previously discussed culture models, the fourth chapter will apply the knowledge on Sweden in a practical way, and gain an insight on Swedish culture as a result. In the second last chapter, the reader is introduced to the topic of leadership, which will be also applied to Sweden to answer the research questions. The sixth and last chapter summarizes the main findings of this thesis.

1.4 Method

This thesis is based on an extensive literature review which consisted of academic journals, scientific papers, books and articles in order to answer the research questions in the most cohesive way.

Literature has been conducted using appropriate sources such as EBSCO Business Source, IEEE, ScienceDirect, Emerald Management, OECD, Google Scholar and Springer Verlag. Books have been retrieved from the university library in Steyr. Most of the consulted literature is written in English, with some exceptions that are in German and Swedish.

By the chosen method, the author confined her research exclusively on literature review, as an empirical part would not have been in the scope of this thesis.

1.5 Gender Declaration

Wherever used herein, a pronoun in the feminine gender is to be considered as including the masculine gender.

2 The concept of culture

“The immense diversity of imagined realities that Sapiens invented, and the resulting diversity of behavior pattern, are the main components of what we call ‘cultures’. “

(Harari 2017, p.88).

About 2.5 million years ago the genus Homo entered the world’s stage in Africa. Since then she continuously evolved. With this evolution, humankind did not only explore how to use fire and safeguard her tribe, but also established profound relationships and ways to foster them. The true means for success is owed to the Homo Sapiens’ unique language, which allows them to interact with one another in a highly sophisticated way. Homo Sapiens lived in groups and developed specific cultures, which made each group exclusive and different from one another (Harari 2017). Until today it cannot be said how many cultures exist worldwide. Not only because some are not even known to the public, but also due to the fact that culture does not only hold for geographical borders but also can represent certain industries, professions, functions or companies (Geertz 1973). In the following chapter, various definitions on culture by well-respected scientists in the field of human studies will be taken into account, which should help in finding a commonly accepted terminology.

2.1 Definitions of Culture

Leading specialists in the field of cultural studies have analyzed the complexity of culture. Among those experts, one should not leave out considerable personalities like Hofstede, Trompenaar, Hampden- Turner, Hall and others. Therefore, this thesis will firstly, compare different definitions by these leading personalities and secondly try to find analogies. It is important to consider that none of these definitions is exclusive but together they help understand the complexity of culture.

According to Brown (1995) “culture is a system for differentiating between in-group and out­group people". Brown (1995) assumes that culture is the differentiation between groups. This however raises the question: How to decide on who is part of the inner group? Turner and Oakes (1986) answered this question by looking at the concept of social identity. They argue, that a person decides on a certain group according to correlating factors like emotions and other psychological phenomenons. Tajfel and Tuner’s (1979) basic motivation is to divide people into “them”, out-group people, and “us”, the in-group people. This creates a sense of belonging and enhances the personal status within a group.

“Culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of collectively held values" (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov 1991, p.6).

Contrary to Brown's definition, Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991) describe culture as a system of shared values that makes members assimilate with each other. These values are specific to a certain culture. According to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991) each human being acquires certain patterns, which influence how one thinks, feels or acts. They call the process of learning new patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, ‘mental programming'. Like a computer, a child can be ‘programmed' by its parents, as well as by extended family members and other people, who are close to them. Therefore, a child is already exposed to different cultures during a young age. Which also influences the evolution of each individual. Depending not only on which country one grows up in, but also which religion one is or which friends one surrounds onself with (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 1991).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Different Levels in Mental Programming, source: (developed by author based on Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov 1991, p.6)

According to Hofstede, (1984) predictions sustain social society, because human beings' behavior is not utterly random but to a certain extent predictable. This ensures routine and stability and can be exemplified within everyday life. Just considering that employee X shows up to work every day at the same time gives a certain likelihood that she will show up the next day at the same time. Hofstede (1984) claims that everyone carries this mental programming, which allows others to make predictions about the other person's behavior. However, he also specifically claims that mental programming is only a construct that was brought into being by humans and is therefore intangible. Therefore, Hofstede has set up three different levels of mental programming that influence human beings, which can be outlined in a pyramid as seen in Figure 1. According to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991), humans are first and foremost influenced by their human nature, which builds the foundation of the pyramid, suggesting that human beings have basic instincts that can only be inherited and are universal to the whole species. The second layer in this pyramid of mental levels is culture, which is solely learned by previous generations and passed on from ancestor to descendent. This also accounts for the stability within cultural patterns. The tip of the pyramid represents one’s own personality, it is the smallest part within the pyramid and unlike culture, personality is specific to each individual human being and can therefore be both, inherited and learned (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov 1991). Prior to Hofstede’s assumption that human nature is inseparable from humans, Geertz (1973) suggested that there is no such thing as ‘basic human nature’, as tribes had to give up certain instincts in order to adapt to changing circumstances which also is strongly supported by the thought of cultural relativism, which will be explained in chapter 2.5.

Schein (2004) suggests that a group of people is defined by their shared history, which is influenced by the duration, the stability of the membership and the experienced emotions. As this history has worked out for the group, it is perceived as being the right way to raise the next generation. Furthermore, culture defines how members are thinking and behaving towards each other by combining human nature with personal attitudes (Dumetz et al. 2012).

2.2 Accord of Definitions

As discussed in chapter 2.1, several authors have tried to define ‘culture’. The quoted authors agree on the following aspects:

- Culture can be learned
- Culture is a collective phenomenon that people, who are connected by natural borders, religious beliefs, historical events, shared preferences etc, share
- Culture evolves over a certain period of time
- Culture is formed by values and norms that influence social behavior

However, these characteristics still cannot do justice to the complexity of culture. This is also partly due to the fact that culture is intangible and can only be seen by what is perceived (Schein 2004). Meaning what can be seen or heard like certain behaviors and symbols. Going deeper would mean looking into a group’s attitude towards something. In order to fully be aware of a culture it is important to look at people’s beliefs and values (Hall 1976). This is also described in various culture models.

2.3 Culture Models

According to Hall (1976, p. 9) “the natural act of thinking is greatly modified by culture.” This suggests that ‘in-group’ people think in a similar way. Consequently, it might be hard for ‘out-group’ people to follow their train of thought, resulting in a common misunderstanding. This misunderstanding is often compensated by stereotyping. By nature, human beings are inquisitive, however not everything is immediately understood and therefore simplifications are used. Stereotypes are simplified and standardized conceptions with a special meaning (Trompenaar and Hampden-Turner 1997).

Common stereotypes might be baguette eating Frenchmen, passionate Spaniards or the meticulous Germans. All of these stereotypes and many more are simplifications that have been developed over time without taking into account the complexity of different cultural settings. Therefore, culture models have been developed to approach various cultures adequately.

2.3.1 Levels of Culture

Edgar Schein’s levels of culture model laid the foundations for many other culture models. His take on culture involves the analysis of several layers (Dumetz et al. 2012). Additionally, this model displays an organizational culture. Schein divided culture into three main categories (as seen in Figure 2).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2: Schein Model, developed by author, source: (Schein 2004, p.26)

Schein’s (2004) model displays as seen in Figure 2 on the top, artifacts. These artifacts are everything that is visible to an out-group person, like architecture, language, specific products etc. As Schein (2004) used his model specifically in the context of organizational structure, he refers to visible organizational processes and structures. These artifacts are easy to recognize; however, it is hard to reflect on the underlying assumption. Espoused beliefs and values are rules and values that are generally accepted. Within the context of an organizational culture, this would be for example, the mission and vision statement of a company. These statements give people security and a philosophy that guides the them. Also within culture as a whole, groups accept rules that have been established by a leader. The third and deepest level of Schein’s model represents underlying assumptions. As the name already suggests, this level is the innermost aspect of a human being and constitutes for anything that is unconsciously done, thought or felt. This could be for instance displayed by women being subordinate to men in the workplace. This behavior is not questioned as it is common practice.

Dumetz et al. (2012) point out that difficulties might arise when deciding which cultural aspects belong to which level. However, it is easily understandable due to its simplicity and was one of the first models in the field of cultural studies.

2.3.2 Iceberg Model

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: The Iceberg Model, developed by author, source: (based on Hall 1977, picture: DeMarco 2015)

One of the most frequently used culture models is the Iceberg Model. It has been formerly introduced by the American author Ernest Hemingway. With the so called ‘Principle of Omission’, Hemingway tried to encourage the reader to think independently and use her imagination. Much of the content has been left out and should be explored by the reader herself (Ma and Zhang 2014). This concept was adapted by Edward T. Hall in 1976. Hall (1977) describes culture as an iceberg. Only the tip of it is visible to others, while the rest is out of awareness and only known to the members of a culture.

As seen in Figure 3, the tip of the iceberg are behaviors and symbols which can be easily identified by out-group people. Exclusive to in-group people are culture-specific attitudes and on the deepest level beliefs and values (Hall 1977).

However, critics claim that this model does not do justice to the complexity of culture, as culture is not static but dynamically evolving (Dumetz et al. 2012).

2.3.3 Hofstede’s Culture Onion

As already mentioned, culture is a complex construct. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991) seek to understand this complexity by using the analogy of an onion, which can be separated into different layers.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The Culture Onion seeks to ‘manifest cultural differences’. Starting with the outermost layer, the most obvious and superficial manifestations, to the innermost whorl of the onion (see Figure 4). The first layer that can be ‘peeled off’ quite easily by ‘out-group’ people are symbols. These symbols can refer to gestures, expressions, particular pieces or images that symbolize a specific meaning to the culture. This might also include how people use certain words, their dialects or how they dress. As symbols easily change, vanish and appear they form the outermost layer. The layer that appears below is reserved for all persons that are either real or fictitious and referred to as heroes. People within a culture admire those heroes and try to replicate their behavior, look or success. For Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991) the third layer is reserved for rituals that are special to a certain culture. Being an essential part in a society, rituals might be for example ways of greeting or other ceremonies. As seen in Figure 4, practices are all those three layers combined. This means that those layers are visible to ‘out-group’ people. The innermost core, and therefore also the deepest level within a culture, are the values. Values are principles or certain standards of what is important for a certain culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov 1991). As already mentioned, culture can be learned. According to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (1991), human beings unconsciously adopt the behavior from their surroundings, this includes symbols, heroes, rituals and most importantly values. This happens during the first ten years. Afterwards, humans focus instead on learning new practices (Lahmer 2012).

2.4 Commonalities within the Culture Models

Hall, Hofstede and Schein are only three of the most well-known social scientists. However, when comparing their models one can identify that they have one common ground that is also of importance for this thesis: Culture is a complex construct, which does not evolve in a sequential way, but a nonconsecutive one. Culture is not a static system, that does not allow any interference but is reformed continuously (Hall 1977; Hofstede 1984; Schein 2004). Whether displayed as an iceberg that only reveals its powerfulness in the depth or as an onion that can be peeled off layer by layer, culture is for an out-group person only visible to a certain level. Keeping this in mind, it is important to acknowledge that any culture should not be compared to or placed above another.

2.5 Cultural Relativism

According to Jones (1998), culture does not grant for any standards that can be applied to another culture in order to assess them with each other. With this hypothesis, Jones also matches with Claude Levi-Strauss (1988, p.229), who describes cultural relativism as affirming “that one culture has no absolute criteria forjudging the activities of another culture as “low” or “noble”. However, every culture should apply such judgment to its own activities, because its members are actors as well as observers. ”

Jones (1998) further argues that the assertion that cultures are valued equally, cannot be supported by the argument of cultural relativism, as this suggests that cultures are incomparable. The ‘Age of Discovery’ is a prime example of how ‘superior’ cultures used to judge other civilizations as ‘primitive’ and imposing their beliefs and values on them. For example, the Conquistadores subjugated large parts of South America and imposed their beliefs on the indigenous people without respecting their cultural mindset (Harari 2017).

According to Geertz (1973) cultural relativism is only an excuse to generalize cultures. Others agree with Geertz and see a lack of plausibility within the concept of cultural relativism.

Rachels (2007) argues that cultural relativism only says that a culture is not to judge the morals of any other culture instead of trying to understand the reasoning. However, taking the example of human sacrifice. From a relativistic point of view, any out-group person cannot say if this action is right or wrong. Meaning that if a person is sacrificed in another culture because of ancient traditions, one should not judge this action (Esikot 2012). However, this example would need to be further discussed by reasons of moral philosophy. As this exceeds the scope of this work, one could use the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant (1785, p.30) “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” When it comes to relativism, one should also consider the changing world view. While during the last century, unique cultures were either untouched by others or vanished, it seems that cultures merge and obliterate each other nowadays (Esikot 2012).

3 Cultural globalization

As discussed by Esikot (2012), globalization is not merely an economic term but also interwoven with many other aspects of life. Holm and Sorensen (1995) hold globalization responsible for intensifying economy, policy, society and culture across borders. Held et al. (1999, p.2) argue that “'globalization may be thought of initially as the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual."

These scholar’s definitions on globalization line up to what Friedman (1999) calls ‘Globalization 3.0’. In his definition, the world shrank in sizes, in a way that is comparable to clothing from ‘Large’ to ‘Small’ between 1914 and 2000. Nowadays, everyone and everything is connected with each other, which creates ‘Globalization 3.0’, shrinking the world from ‘Small’ to ‘Tiny’.

This assertion raises the question, how does globalization influence cultures?

In order to answer this question, this chapter will look closely at various factors of globalization that might influence culture.

Lechner and Boli (2005) predict that national cultures are and will be threatened by global cultures. Conversi (2010) calls this process ‘cultural homogenization’, which has already occurred in history several times. According to Hassi and Storti (2012) cultural exchange began already 5,000 years ago with commercial trade. Whereby, cultural goods were exchanged and exported. This trend flourished and rapidly spread across the globe. Globalization as already discussed, touches upon many aspects of human life. Globalization significantly influences various factors like connectivity, regionalization and inequality but it is also influenced by technological change (Pieterse 2015). These factors lead to both, cultural uniformity but also cultural differentiation (Conversi 2010).

3.1 Three H’s of cultural globalization

In order to analyze the effect of globalization on culture, three different scenarios have been taken into consideration.

3.1.1 Homogenization scenario

Globalization causes cultural convergence, or in other words, the process of homogenization (Liebes 2003). Hassi and Storti (2012) name various concepts which reflect this phenomenon, among those are Global Culture, the McDonaldization theory, Americanization or coca-colanization. McLuhan and Powers (1989) firstly introduced the term “global village”, which Robertson (1992) later calls the worldwide assimilation of traditions, behaviors and ways how people dress and what they consume as “global culture”. Therefore, global culture appears to be destroying unique cultural habits and traditions and in that way homogenizing culture (Hassi and Storti 2012). However, Craig, Douglas and Bennett (2009) argue that the disruptive force of a global culture is nonetheless only applicable to cultures that share similar values to the Western world. As stated above, homogenization is to a great extent influenced by the McDonaldization theory. One might ask the question, how burger consumption influences cultural development? The term McDonaldization has been developed by the sociologist George Ritzer in 1993. Whereby he states that “the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world,” (Ritzer 1993, p.1). McDonaldization is characterized by four main components, which are efficiency, calculability, predictability and control (Ritzer 1998). These four components are not only the success behind McDonalds but also perfectly embedded into the concept of consumption. This means that these four words created a consumer culture that is now executed all over the world (Goodman 2007). By choosing to eat a McDonald’s burger for lunch in one’s car, one already decides not to share a home cooked meal together with the family. This might not sound like anything shattering but in the long-run this development continuously changes cultural habits and morphes them into one (Liebes 2003).

3.1.2 Heterogenization scenario

Contrary to homogenization, certain scholars advocate the thought that globalization, instead of equalizing cultures, diversifies them (Featherstone 1995; Hassi and Storti 2012). Ritzer (2010) argues that cultures remain different as first and foremost on a local level, cultures diversify over a period of time. When it comes to a global level, more than two local levels become distinct. This has been reinforced by the thought that the core of the culture stays untouched by any other culture, whereas only parts on the surface might be influenced in a way (Prasad and Prasad 2006). Magu (2015) argues that culture should not be seen as a static process and will adapt in any case. He states that culture is dynamic and is able to adopt the best characteristics of another culture and transform them into its own culture.

3.1.3 Hybridization scenario

“Hybridity is almost a good idea, but not quite. ” (Thomas 1996, p.1)

Having been introduced to both, the homogenization and heterogenization concept, one would think that a combination of them ought to be the best option. However, as Thomas (1996) puts it above, it is not an ultimate solution. Kraidy (2017) defends this assumption, because by combining several ideas, beliefs and concepts, some of which contradict each other while some reinforce each other, the result is an idea that is sometimes essential and sometimes not applicable.

Bhaba (1994) called the process of hybridization the point when cultures get in touch and clash with each other. Hybridization as such occurs when local cultural agents interact with global entities. While for Bhahba (1994), hybridization shows the servility among indigenous people in the colonial age, Voskos and Knapp (2008) do not favor this and rather say that the concept of hybridization supposes that all parties involved in the process contribute equally.

3.2 Three paradigms on the relationship between global and local cultures

Two well-known scholars have been compared in order to analyze their take on the three paradigms of cultural globalization (as seen in Table 1).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: Comparison of three H’s, developed and adapted by author, source: (Hall 2003 and Pieterse 2015).

Stuart Hall (2003) is known for his Encoding/Decoding Model which conceptualizes communication as a loop. He claims that depending on one’s cultural background, messages are interpreted differently. Therefore, he has established three different positions of how a message might be decoded, which also refers to how global and local cultures interact with each other. Therefore, he firstly suggests the dominant-hegemonic code, whereby the receiver of a message decodes it exactly as primarily encoded. Meaning that both the sender of the message as well as the recipient, share the same cultural values. Applied on the concept of homogenization this concept would be beneficial as misunderstandings could be avoided (Hall 2003). Consequently, this would help solve the ubiquitous problem of cultures conflicting with each other. Taking this point into consideration, homogenization would be advantageous. However, the second author that has been chosen, Jan N. Pieterse (2015) says that homogenization, converges cultures and that especially the Americanization/ McDonaldization or Westernization, is putting pressure on local cultures and creating a global culture which is to a great extent based on consumer culture.

As explained in chapter 3.1.2., heterogenization opposes to the interference of global flows acting on local agents. This is also displayed within the communication between sender and receiver in the oppositional code. While the receiver would actually understand the message in the correct way, he/she recites the message incompletely by using an alternative framework, which represents national interest. When looking at how globalization influences cultures, this would suggest that local cultures try to preserve the prevailing values by all means (Hall 2003).

[...]