Cultural Influences on Arab Management Development: A Case Study of Jordan

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. A review of cultural factors influencing behaviour in Arab organisations provides the basis for this overview of management development in Jordan. IntroductionOne of the critical factors in the development of an emerging nation has been, and continues to be, the shortage of able and appropriately educated and trained managers. This problem characterises a number of Arab countries, including Jordan. Within the country itself, there has been a frequent debate on the value, both direct and indirect, of increasing the pace of the country's development. There are those who argue that training, especially at the top levels, leads to no substantial improvement in management performance. Supporters of management development (MD) contend that the fault does not lie with the concept of training and education itself, but rather with the methods, materials and teaching approaches currently being used.

A cross‐cultural comparison of organizational culture: evidence from universities in the Arab world and Japan

“…For example, the collectivist orientation of Arab people, loyalty and commitment to the group, such as the immediate or extended family or the business organization, as well as the preference of Arab managers for participative and consultative decision making have been noted (Ali, 1992;Ali, Taqi and Krishnan, 1997) although elsewhere Ali (1993) has drawn a distinction between the consultative and the pseudo-consultative decision-making styles arguing that Arab managers, espousing some element of authoritarianism, actually prefer the latter. Studies in Jordan argue that local companies suffer from an excessive lack of delegation of authority and that a participative leadership style is not appreciated by Jordanian managers (Al-Faleh, 1987;Al-Rasheed, 2001); this is consistent with Muna's (1980) obser-Volume 11 Number 1 2004 17 vation regarding Arab managers that is, while consultation may take place, decisions are never made jointly with subordinates and are not delegated down the hierarchy. Arab managers show concern for friendly relationships and harmony within the group, exemplified by their preference for handling interpersonal conflict on the basis of collaboration between the parties involved (Elsayed and Buda, 1996), but they also demand loyalty, obedience, and compliance from subordinates suggesting a social distance between managers and employees which may be attributed to beliefs about authority in Islamic societies (Bjerke and Al-Meer, 1993).…”

“…This translates into respect for seniority and authority, as determined by age, family, and sex, a feature of many Arab countries (Barakat, 1993;Ali and Wahabi, 1995), and preference for hierarchical communication and tall organizations (more pronounced in Arab countries) with systems and structures that bind the individual to the group. Members of a group tend to be reserved towards outsiders treating them with suspicion while relationships within the group influence attitudes towards work and superiors (Al-Faleh, 1987). Regarding the temporal focus of human activity, the Arab culture is said (Al-Rasheed, 2001) to be mostly past-oriented (probably more so than the Japanese culture) as illustrated by the respect for precedence, age and the authority that goes with it, need for continuity and a certain aversion to change, and reliance on past experience in decision making (Deresky, 1994: 441-443;Mead, 1998: 24-27); past orientation, however, does not imply fatalism (Ali, 1998).…”

Transferring Western HRM practices to developing countries

“…Pre-privatization HRM According to Hakooz (1997), Telecom Co. had a role culture based on structure, order, stability and control; in other words the type of management style identified by Jackson (2004) and Al-Faleh (1987). In summary, Jackson (2004) and Al-Faleh (1987) mentioned such aspects as: the greater importance attached to status, position and seniority than to performance; central control and little delegation; authoritarian management style; the importance of kinship ties and of social formalities; low egalitarianism; and, lack of open communication.…”

“…In summary, Jackson (2004) and Al-Faleh (1987) mentioned such aspects as: the greater importance attached to status, position and seniority than to performance; central control and little delegation; authoritarian management style; the importance of kinship ties and of social formalities; low egalitarianism; and, lack of open communication.…”

“…Mueller (1994, p. 421) has argued that there are likely to be "greater limits to MNCs transferring their best practices to subsidiaries in developing countries", and Buckley and Casson (1991, p. 50) have suggested that the sophisticated systems thinking and strategic attitudes of MNCs are not easily transferable to developing countries because of cultural barriers. Jackson (2004) drew attention to characteristics of management systems within former colonial countries, which echo those identified by Al-Faleh (1987) as typifying Arab approaches to management and can act as a barrier to such transfers. These include, a top down management style which emphasises motivation by control rather than results, the utilisation of "heavy bureaucracy", authoritarian management practices, discriminatory internal policies that can lead to promotions and appointments being based on relationships, a lack of management skills, and management principles that lead to a "success orientation" that is moralistic rather than pragmatic.…”