International Journal of

Knowledge and Systems Sciences

Vol. 3, No.4, December 2006

The Knowledge Cybernetics of Culture: the Case of China

Maurice Yolles1, Paul Iles2

1
Centre for the Creation of Coherent Change and Knowledge, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
2
The Business School, University of Teesside UK

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

theory macroscopic culture drives both values and

1. Introduction
In terms of ‘national’ culture, culture is seen by
Hofstede [1] as the “software of the mind that forms
through learned patterns of thinking, feeling and
acting. Hofstede wanted to classify cultural diversity in
relational to organisational needs. His model classifies
cultures across four (later five) dimensions of
measurement based on cultural value. This derives
from his view that culture is a “collective programme”
of the minds of a group that differentiates them from
other groups, resulting in a computing metaphor
Understanding culture and cultural differentiation has
therefore become an important task ever since the
work of Hoftsede[2].
According to Ralston [3], two distinct theoretical
stances exist concerning the relationship between
ideology and the belief system, and in particular the
creation of values. Convergence theory purports that
the workplace drives values, while for divergence
ideology. A new paradigm has emerged that Mwaura et
al [4] refer to as crossvergence, which purports that
work ideology and macroscopic culture interact to
create a new and unique value system. However, it
would seem that this evolutionary paradigmatic
development is ignorant of the principles embedded in
the work on structural coupling by Maturana and
Varela [5], and its potential implications for cultural
change.
Cultural mapping techniques were developed by
Hofstede [2] to enable the exploration of macroscopic
culture, and it has been used to explore microscopic
cultures too. Hofstede [6] sees that organizational or
corporate cultures have partial membership (i.e., being
driven by practices that drive values.The five Hofstede
classifications are: (1) Individual vs. Collective
Orientation, (2) Power-Distance Orientation, (3)
Uncertainty-Avoidance Orientation, (4)
Dominant-Values Orientation, and (5) Short-Term vs.
Long-Term Orientation, or Confucian Dynamism’.
 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006
There are arguments that this approach has limitations.
Since Hofstede [2], his work has received
sustained criticism, especially on the publication of the
second edition of the original book [7][8]. For
McSweeney [9][10] the concept of ‘systematically
causal’ cultures is implausible, and he makes a number
of critical comments on Hofstede’s conceptualisations
(eg of national cultures as implicit, core,
systematically causal, territorially unique, and shared,
assumptions about organisational, national and
occupational cultures, the creation of questionnaire
responses by national culture, the situational non-
specificity of national culture) and methodology (use
of questionnaires, employment of ‘stories’ as proof).
Though more supportive of the overall approach and
assumptions, Smith [11] also raises a number of
psychometric and methodological questions, especially
over the ‘ levels of analysis’ issue, the problems in
relating individual behaviour to cultural context, and
the validity of the dimensions (eg. high inter-
correlations, correlations with GNP, anomalous
relationships with other variables). Many researchers
continue to rely on Hofstede [2], even in studies of
China, which was not included in the 1980 study
(Hong Kong and Taiwan, which were, showed very
different profiles).
2. Knowledge Cybernetics and Culture
Knowledge cybernetics has been developed by Yolles
[12] for complex systems. Complexity has been
explored, for instance, by Nicolis and Prigogine [13]
and Cohen and Stewart [14]. It is also implicit to the
theory of autonomous viable systems as explored by
Beer [15][16] and by Schwarz [17]. Just as the system
is normally seen as a metaphor, knowledge cybernetics
Conditions
Believing Thinking
(Knowledge) (Information)
Is conditioned by
Fig. 1. Ontological relationship between types of reality
The basis of Social Viable Systems (SVS) has an
ontology shown in fig. 2 that was developed from
Yolles (1999)[20] into Yolles [12](2006). The three
domains constitute distinct modes of being:
9
metaphorical in that it: (a) explores knowledge
formation and its relationship to information; (b)
provides a critical view of individual and social
knowledge, and their processes of communication and
associated meanings, (c) seeks to create an
understanding of the relationship between people and
their social communities for the improvement of social
collective viability, and an appreciation of the role of
knowledge in this. In a coherent autonomous human
activity system knowledge occurs in structured
patterns. This provides the structure that enables the
system to recognise its existence, maintain itself, and
change, and its manifestations constitute systemic
content. While the notion of system (attributed to
Bertalanffy[18] through his notion of the “general
system”) is used to explain behavioural phenomena, its
cybernetic exploration derives from the work of
Rosenblueth, Wiener and Bigelow [19] who were
interested in its teleogical properties that relate to its
identity, degree of autonomy and coherence.
Knowledge cybernetics uses a core model that
can be explained in relatively simple terms. It adopts
the common ontological distinction often made
between the three types of reality that can be attributed
to archetypical rational beings: believing, thinking and
doing (Fig. 1). Epistemologically speaking, believing
is connected to knowledge while thinking is connected
to information and doing is empirically connected and
is therefore data related; these connections may not be
immediate and linear however. In the archetypical
emotional being it may be said that processes of
thinking are complexified by feeling, though this
extension is beyond our interest here. While the
natures of the three attributes of figure 1 are all very
different, they do have a mutual relationship in the
autonomous being.
Affects
Doing
(Empirical data)
Is affected by
measurable energetic phenomenal behaviour,
information rich images or systems of thought, and
knowledge related existence that is expressed through
patterns of meaning. The term existential is taken
10 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006
directly from Schwarz’s usage; the term noumenal is
taken from the positivist work of Kant (e.g., see Weed
[21]), and though we also refer to the sphere of mind
and thinking as did he, our approach is constructivist;
and the term phenomenal has been adopted because of
intended consistency with the principles of
phenomenology as founded by Husserl [22]) (deriving
from his 1882 doctoral thesis; also see Osborn [23])
and after him Heidegger [24].
The three domains of SVS are analytically
distinct classifications of being, and they each have
properties that are manifestations of knowledge. The
phenomenal domain has social interests adapted from
Habermas’s [25] in a way explained in Yolles and Guo
[26]. The other domain properties arise as an extension
of this, are listed in table 4, and draw on both systemic
and cybernetic notions. There is a connection here to
Schutz and Luckmann [27] in that the epistemological
content of each of the 3 domains can be defined in
terms of relevancies. The existential domain has
thematic relevance that determines the constituents of
an experience; the noumenal or virtual domain has
interpretative relevance that creates direction through
the selection of relevant aspects of a stock of
knowledge to formulate ideate structures or a system
of thought; and the phenomenal domain is associated
with motivational relevance that causes a local
conclusion through action. The Taoist notions of Jing,
Chi and Shen have also to be explained. Sunshine and
Wang [28] note three forms of measurable energy. For
them, these three energies can be associated with
matter, energy, and information. Energy facilitation is
an integral part of Taoism, and three ontologically
distinct forms of energy can be identified through the
ancient idea of “the three treasures”. According to
Liang and Wu [29], these treasures are the
Jiang-Chi-Shen energies1 that theorize and explain the
human physiological system and the fundamentals for
all facets of life and its many variations. Jing is the
essence of material-life is a coarse physical energy,
Chi is an energy that we may see as psycho-physical in
nature, and Shen is the spiritual life force energy. As
such the Jing, Chi and Shen are inseparably linked
with each another. The nature of this relationship is
that Jing is manifested as Chi that is in turn manifested
as Shen. Shen may also ultimately be manifested as
Tao – a process of achieving ever-higher levels of
1
For a definition of these terms see for instance the
The Tai Chi Chuan Lun (Discourse) at the website
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/classics_lun
_commentary.html, or the the Toowoomba Buddhist
Centre, T’ai Chi,
http://www.fwbo.org.au/toowoomba/tai_chi_chuan.ht
ml, accessed June 2005.
integration. This metaphorically represents an intimate
relationship that is implied by the ontological
differentiation shown in Fig. 2.
The nature of autopoiesis and autogenesis is of
particular interest in SVS. Here autopoiesis is
constituted simply as a network of processes that
enables noumenal activity to become manifested
phenomenally, conditioned by autogenesis – a network
of principles that create a second order form of
autopoiesis that guides autopoietic processes.
Autopoiesis may be thought as a process of operative
management, a term coined by Schwaninger [30], and
autogenesis as process of strategic management.
3. Conditioning Knowledge
Cybernetics through a Perspective of
Chinese Culture
The specific interest in China by Hofstede and the
arguments that surround it therefore makes it an
appropriate case for a study on culture, but there are a
number of limitations with existing work. In the first
instance, Hofstede [2][6] appears to assume that
national territory corresponds to cultural homogeneity,
but China is not homogenous, with strong regional
differences and minority ethnic/religious subcultures.
There is also a problem with the use of some of his
terms. For instance, the words ‘individualism’ and
‘collectivism’ appear to differ in meaning in different
countries. As an instance of this take the context
employee loyalty [31][32][33]. Japanese employees
may be seen to be loyal to their organizations, while
Chinese employees may well be more loyal to their
families. However, both adopt the principle of
collectivism that differs from individualism.
It may be noted that, as we have seen, Hofstede
also later identified a fifth dimension for Chinese
culture, “Confusion Dynamism”, that constitutes a
“long-term orientation’, or the capacity to adapt
traditions to new situations, willingness to save, thrifty
approach to scarce resources, willingness to persevere
over the long term, and subordinate one’s own
interests to achieve a purpose, and a concern with
Virtue. However, there is an argument [9] that this
dimension is inadequate. The reason is that the
research from which Hofstede extracted the additional
dimension was a “Chinese Values Survey” (CVS) by
The Chinese Culture Connection group (CCC)[34]. An
examination of this research reveals that one of
Hofstede's four dimensions - Uncertainty Avoidance
(UA) - as irrelevant to Chinese populations and
therefore downgraded UA from being a universal
dimension of national cultures (as it is in Hofstede's
four dimensional model) to a non-universal dimension
[34][35]. None of the CVS factors were correlated
 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006 11

with UA. McSweeney concludes that if Hofstede in his model. If alternatively Hofstede regards the
regards the CCC study to be valid he should not have CCC study as flawed he should not have grafted on the
just added Confucian Dynamism to his prior list of fifth dimension.
four dimensions. He should also have downgraded UA

Autopoiesis
Autogenesis
(self-production through a
(self-production of
network of processes):
principles): governance,
operative processes,
strategic management
politics

Noumenal domain
Existential domain of Mind (Chi energy) Phenomenal domain of
of Being (Jing energy) Images, systems of thought, Experience (Shen
Culture, worldviews, imagination, rationality & energy)
paradigms, understanding intention Structure, behaviour,
Unconscious Subconscious interaction
Knowledge Information Conscious

Autogenesis: feedback Autopoiesis: feedback

adjusting the guiding adjusting network of
principles for autopoiesis processes

Fig. 2. Social Viable Systems (SVS) model based on Schwarzian model of Autonomous Viable Systems, where
autonomy is a function of both autogenesis and autopoiesis

Other approaches have employed Hofstede’s
classifications, but used different methodologies.
Jackson [36] in a 10 nations study of the relationships
between uncertainty avoidance and collectivism with
managerial ethical behaviour, he places China (on
‘estimates derived from other work’, p 1269) with
Spain (and Thailand) but not Hong Kong, in a
‘moderate to high collectivism and high power
distance’ group. Similarly, Chinese managers
attributed high importance to group issues, such as
passing blame to others and claiming credit for others’
work. Jackson [36] concludes that Hofstede’s
dimensions are over- simplified, and that individualism
in particular is more complex, bringing in the work of
Schwartz [37] and ‘egalitarian commitment’ to explain
the high ethical importance attached to group relations
issues in supposedly ‘individualistic’ countries like the
UK.
Other studies of Chinese culture have taken other
research approaches, especially in considering the
impact of Confucianism on culture in China, as
undisputedly the most influential thought that forms a
foundation for Chinese culture and interpersonal
behavior [38]. It provides both the behavioral and
moral doctrine of human relationships, social
structures, virtuous behaviour, and ethics. Its principles
extol loyalty and duty, love and obedience, obligation
and submission, seniority and trust [39].
Confucianism is seen as influencing the way
employees perceive the organization as a symbolic
family, amplified by ideology emphasising group
rewards. This implies a stress on organizational
hierarchy, authority and order, mutual obligations and
the provision of benefits in exchange for loyalty, and
harmony, long- term relationship, a concern for face,
respect and integrity, and the avoidance of direct
criticism in interpersonal relationships. Wang et al
[40], on the basis of a literature review, focus on five
major aspects of Confucianism: 1) hierarchy and
harmony 2) group orientation 3) guanxi networks/
relationships 4) mianzi or face 5) time orientation.
They also explore the impact of these values on
management practices in four areas: 1) working
relationships 2) decision-making processes 3) rule by
man- ren zhi- rather than by law 4) HRM.The recent
emphasis on efficiency, productivity,
performance-based rewards, and the decline in job
security in many Chinese organizations, especially
SOEs, has threatened Confucian traditions and values,
leading to sub- cultural differences. Liu [41] factor
analysed a survey of Chinese employees to reveal five
themes: Equality, Security, Loyalty, Harmony and
Bureaucracy. Younger workers expressed unhappiness
with regard to harmony at the expense of poor
performance, and differed in their interpretation of
bureaucracy, security, stability and loyalty by seeing
these in more conditional, contractual, calculative,
rather than family/ (profit) put ahead of yi (justice),
and ‘outdated’ values may be relational, ways.
These studies show the importance of looking at
the changing dynamics of Chinese culture. Cultural
12 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006

arguments linking Chinese economic performance to
Confucian values for example [42] - often asserting a
negative association up to the 1990s, often now
asserting a positive relationship- neglect however the
ways culture changes – cultures interact with, and
influence, each other. Confucian culture not only
stresses holism, but also practical realism and
pragmatism, valuing practical application [1], and
China has always flourished when open to other
cultures (e.g., Tang/Song Dynasties) than when
culturally closed (e.g., Qing Dynasty). Ideas have
been introduced from outside, indigenous elements
reinterpreted, links built with foreign ideas, and
cultural elements refocused (e.g. education re-directed
to science and technology rather than the humanities).
An about face on Confucian values may also occur
with li rejected. Guanxi (networks, connections)
which once may have been seen as good for business
and useful for efficient informational financial
channels, may now be seen as developing into ‘cosy
relationships’. Their significance may be declining
as price and quality become more important [43].
Drawbacks to this model include the danger of
nepotism and lack of integration of professional
‘outsiders’, limiting growth (see also Redding [44]).
According to Newell [45], differences between
China and the West are primarily through its
community nature as opposed to what we shall refer to
the utility paradigm of the West. A modified version of
Newell’s model is presented in Table 1. In particular,
Newell notes that there are three attributes of Chinese
culture that are not found in the West, which support
an orientation it has towards the community paradigm.
One of these notions is guanxi, or interpersonal
relations. According to Butterfield [46] the Chinese
have made personal relationships into a carefully
calculated science. Personal networks are of key
importance for conducting business, and authority is
based on interpersonal relations rather than legal
rationality [47]. Guanxi is essential if approval is to be
granted in order to access anything in China [48].
Guanxi produces personal obligations, for instance in
response to requests for assistance by someone in the
network.

Table 1. Relating the Western commodity and the more Chinese community paradigm

Characteristics Utility Paradigm Community Paradigm

Nature of knowledge Objectively defined concepts and facts Tacit and socially constructed
Knowledge acquisition Can be captured and codified Developed through group based
knowledge sharing
Best practice for organizational Objective rules universally applied to all Principles that organizations use to locally
improvement organizations define their own rules
Knowledge migration Transfer through formal explicit Personal/local knowledge developed
processes (e.g., notes) enhanced by through group learning processes that
exposure to exemplars create experience
Dominant metaphor Memory Group processes
Critical success factors Identified by Western narrative Trust and belonging

particular interest here lies in 6 generic categories that

4. Towards a Unified Model of Chinese
Culture?
Fan [39] has explored Chinese culture, and in
particular examined the classifications created by
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck [49], Hofstede [6], and the
“Chinese Culture Collection” produced in 1987 that
lists elements of the belief system (i.e., the
interrelating attitudes, values and beliefs) associated
with Chinese culture, including the influence of
Confucianism. As a consequence of linking these
studies, Fan [39] develops a list to 71 values that affect
the belief system that run across 8 categories: national
traits, interpersonal relations, family/social orientation,
work attitude, business philosophy, personal traits,
time orientation and relationship with nature. Our
derive from Fan [39], and which creates a new frame
of reference for the cultural context that can be
assessed in both microscopic and macroscopic culture,
so that Fan’s macroscopic (national culture)
classifications are not adequate.
This reduction to a generic core comes from a
general systemic theory of context that is currently
being developed that relates to understanding given
situations in terms of a set of sub-situations that can be
defined within it. Where a generic frame of reference
for a situation has been created, it becomes meaningful
only when an appropriate context for that situation is
identified. Given a situation it is always possible to
define ontologically distinct but related sub-situations.
The principle we hold in creating the relationship
between global and local contexts is encapsulated by a
constructivist principle of migration [12]. Given a
global context which can be described by a set of
 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006 13

characteristics, then these characteristics can be
manifested locally through semantic changes in a way
determined by the local context. Hence, migration can
be thought of as a non-linear mapping that occurs
between global and local contexts. A simple example
of this in the area of communications might be useful.
Consider a message with a particular theme issued
globally by a message source (the sender). Such a
message may be contained in a book that can be pulled
off a shelf by an interested person, or an email with the
potential to be delivered to someone on the Internet
who has an interest in, or connection with, that theme.
When a thematic message is transmitted globally (by a
source) then the acquirer (a receiving sink)
understands its attendant knowledge from a local
viewpoint. .

Table 2. Relationship between the global and local context characteristics of culture
Generic Recursive Domain Relevance within Existential Domain
Cultural Phenomenal Domain Noumenal domain Existential Domain
Characteristics (Implied collective (Implied collective (Collective Unconscious)
(relating to predisposition to predisposition to Subconscious/ Relating to knowledge, belief, freedom and emotion
cultural Conscious/Ego) Superego) States Disposition
condition) Relating to work, interaction Relating to intention, organizing, (impulses, instincts, (knowledge, emotion,
and emancipation and manner of thinking perceptions, imaginings, filter to processes of
drives and motivations) knowledge migration)
Extreme Pragmatism (reflective of Patterning (persistent curiosity
condition: circumstance) – about object world, connected to Sensatism (locked to phenomena, sense and
Fundamentalism (conformity symmetry, pattern, balance, materially related, may be able to translate the
to a fundamental prescription dynamics of physical ideas of others materially) – Ideationalism (relating
independent of circumstance) relationships) – Dramatizing to acquisition or creation of concepts or ideas)
(commitment to sequences of
interpersonal events and
communications with dramatic or
narrative structures)
Global Context Local Contexts
Cultural Work, interaction & Intention, manner of thinking & Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion through
condition emancipation through image through persistent knowledge intensification or commitment to
reflection or commitment to curiosity or commitment to material phenomena
prescription narrative Cultural & individual Knowledge &
impulses, drives & emotions
motivations
Respect Hard work/industry, Legitimacy Sincerity, Courtesy Tolerance, Respect for the Tradition, Sense of
of ascription of roles and fixed old cultural superiority
resources like social power (e.g.
power distance), Heroism
Honor Commitment (social or political Loyalty to superiors Trustworthiness Kinship
grouping). Face (protecting, giving, gaining, Social justice
Resistance to corruption, losing) Filial piety (paternal
Responsibility obligation)
Synergy Harmony with others, Persistence/perseverance Moderation Repayment of good
Consensus/compromise, Te (virtue, moral standard) Open Mindedness and bad
Avoiding confrontation, Thrift Order, Unity with nature
(efficiency)
Non-competition
Allegiances Solidarity Conformity/group orientation Jen ai/Kindness Feeling of belonging
Governance by leaders (as Collectivism (forgiveness, compassion) Long lasting
opposed to law) Guanxi (personal connection/ Equality relationships (as
networking) opposed to gains)
Learning Observation or rites/rituals Adaptability Personal steadiness and Knowledge
Baring hardships Goal formation, Control stability acquisition
Risk development, Uncertainty, Self-cultivation, Stability
ambiguity, curiosity Creativity, Variety, Ambition
Accomplishment,
Intellectual pursuits
Sensibility Li/propriety, Wealth, Not guided solely by profit, Patience Abasement/
Pragmatism (to suit a situation), Having few desires, Contentedness Prudence humbleness
Security with position in life, People being Purity/disinterest, Success, Sense of shame, Sense
primarily good Pleasure, Excitement of righteousness/
integrity
14 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006
In Table 2 we show the frame of reference
defined by the 6 values that define the cultural
characteristics. It may be noted that the context set out
here relates to national culture, but it could be directed
to corporate culture also. If the local contexts are to be
so related, then the mapping of each of the 6
characteristics to local contexts may need to be
adjusted to relate to local corporate contexts. The
global context defined in Table 2 is cultural condition
that is applicable to either national or corporate
culture, and the local contexts given are defined as:
(1) Work, interaction & emancipation through
reflection or commitment to prescription;
(2) Intention, manner of thinking & image
through persistent curiosity or commitment to
narrative;
(3) Knowledge, belief, freedom & emotion
through knowledge intensification or commitment to
material phenomena which is itself a global context for
two related local contexts, cultural and individual
impulses, drives and motivations and knowledge and
emotions
Defined in terms of global and local contexts, we
are able to illustrate the principle of migration. We
have identified three types of context: the objectivated
global context, the local contexts that arise from the
SVS domains, and the local sub-contexts of the
existential domain. The global context has been
defined as a set of six generic variables that exists as a
frame of reference intended to represent the
characteristics of any culture. In contrast the local
contexts uniquely arise from the ontologically defined
domains of the SVS model. Since the global context is,
by the principle of migration, always represented
within a local context in terms of that locality, the
meaning the variable takes on a new interpretation in
each column.
It is of interest that the generic cultural values that
define the frame of reverence for global context have
the possibility of operating in the same way as the
cultural values of Schwartz [37], with each of the
generic values having a positive or negative attribute
depending upon the culture. Thus, for instance,
phenomenal allegiance in culture may be high (say
taking a value of 10 on a scale of 1-10) in Chinese
culture where it relates to the strong support of
governance by leaders rather than law, solidarity, and
guanxi. However in the West it might be considered to
be low (say for example a value of 2), and thus more
directed towards governance by law not leaders,
individuality, and with little reliance of guanxi. It is
clear from this that phenomenal allegiance has a
connection with Hoftede’s variable individuality.
However, it is the virtual noumenal allegiance that is
connected to collectivism, quite distinct from
Hofstede. Phenomenal allegiance also has a
relationship to Schwartz’s notion of hierarchy. Other
variables from both Hofstede and Schwartz have been
assigned to table 2 across the local contexts.
SVS is built on a broad theoretical base and is
deeply connected to knowledge and cultural processes.
Together with Fan’s collection of cultural values that is
able to depict Chinese culture, the identification,
examination, measurement and exploration of different
cultures is quite feasible. One of the consequences of
the theory is that all of the existing models of culture
can be posted within the SVS model. It should be
realised that the table does not constitute a rigidly
fixed typology, but is flexible in that the cell contents
can change according to the nature of the global
context and local contexts defined. With reference to
the above empirical studies it can be concluded that
the Chinese society (or organization) is high in power
distance according to Hofstede’s model, and has a
hierarchical social (or organization) structure. In a
society (or organization) with these characteristics,
people are treated and treat others differently
according to the status of the concerned parties. They
give respect to positional power rather than to
legitimated law. These may cause problems for the
enforcement of HRM and regulations of HRM. On one
hand, HRM itself may not be respected as it should be.
On the other hand, it might be considered acceptable
for people with high status and positional power not to
obey regulations of HRM, which, in turn, undermines
the effect of the HRM. It is also possible that its some
regulations themselves may not be as effective as the
presence of HRM in western organizations in
regulating and promoting their staff’s behaviour
Another key feature of the Chinese society is
collectivism and group-orientation. People make clear
distinctions between in-groups and out-groups. They
offer help and exchange within in-groups, but are
unsympathetic, harsh, and may be even aggressive
toward out-groups. These characteristics may have
implications for the behaviour of Chinese staff in
organization, and the most likely consequence would
be negative. One aspect that arises from the theory
that appears quite novel is the idea that cultures can be
pathological in nature, and it is from this condition that
social and political problems can arise. Cultural
pathologies have never been sought as a cause for
fundamental difficulties in socially, and it would be
interesting to use this in a research project to see how
much utility can be found from the notion to enhance
social improvement.
References
[1] Hofstede, G., Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill: London,
1991.
 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006
[2] Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences:
International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980.
[3] Ralston, F, Hidden Dynamics: How Emotions
Affect Business Performance and How You Can
Harness Their Power for Positive Results,
American Management Association, New York,
NY, 1995.
[4] Mwaura,G., Sutton,J., Roberts, D., “Corporate and
national culture - an irreconcilable dilemma for
the hospitality manager?”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Volume 10, Number 6, pp. 212-220, 1998.
[5] Maturana, H., Varela, F.J., “Autopoiesis and
Cognition”, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of
Science, Boston, 1979.
[6] Hofstede, G., “Management scientists are human”,
Management Science, 40, 1, 4-13, 1994.
[7] Hofstede, G., Culture’s Consequences: comparing
values, behaviours, institutions and organisatins
across nations Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001.
[8] Hofstede, G, “Dimensions do not exist; A reply to
Brendan Sweeney”, Human Relations 55, 11,
1355-1361, 2002.
[9] Mcsweeney, B., “Hofstede's Model of National
Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A
Triumph Of Faith - A Failure Of Analysis”,
Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, (January), pp.
89-118, 2002.
http://www.It.Murdoch.Edu.Au/~Sudweeks/B329/
Readings/Mcsweeney.Doc
[10] McSweeney B., “The essentials of scholarship: a
reply to Geert Hofstede”, Human Relations 55, 11,
1363-1372, 2001.
[11] Smith, P., “Culture’s consequences: something old
and something new”, Human Relations 55, 1,
119-135, 2002.
[12] Yolles, M. I., Organizations a Complex Systems:
an introduction to knowledge cybernetics,
Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT,
USA, 2006.
[13] Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I., Exploring Complexity:
An Introduction. W. H. Feeman and Co., New
York, 1989.
[14] Cohen, J., Stewart, I., The Collapse of Chaos:
discovering simplicity in a complex world. Viking,
London, 1994.
[15] Beer, S., Cybernetics and Management., English
University Press, London, 1959.
[16] Beer, S., Diagnosing the System, Wiley,
Chichester, 1985.
[17] Schwarz, E., “Towards a Holistic Cybernetics:
From Science through Epistemology to Being”,
Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 4(1)17-50,
1997.
15
[18] Bertalanffy, L. V., General Systems Theory: a new
approach to the unity of science, Human Biology,
23(Dec.)302-361, 1951.
[19] Rosenblueth, A., Wierner, N., Bigelow, J.,
Behaviour, Purpose and Teology, Philosophy of
Science, 10(1)18-24, 1943.
[20] Yolles, M.I., Management Systems: a viable
approach, Financial Times Pitman, London, 1999.
[21] Weed, L., “Kant's Noumenon and Sunyata”, Asian
Philosophy, 12(2), 77-95, July, 2002.
[22] Husserl, E., Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenolgie
und phanomenologischen Philosophie, vol.1, in
Husserliana, vol. 3,1950. Also see Husserl, 1950-,
XIX. 1911: Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft,
Logos, vol. 1. English translation by Lauer, Q.,
1965, Husserl, Harper and Row, New York
[23] Osborn, A., Edmund Husserl and his Logical
Investigations, International Press, New York,
1934.
[24] Heidegger , M., Sein und Zeit, and also published
as Heidegger, M., Stanbaugh, J., Sight and Time,
1996, State University of New York Press, 1927.
[25] Habermas J, Knowledge and human interests
Beacon Press Boston, 1971.
[26] Yolles, M.I., Guo, K., Paradigmatic
Metamorphosis and Organisational Development,
Sys. Res., 20, 177-199, 2003.
[27] Schutz, A., Luckmann, T., The Structures of the
Lifeworld. Heinamann, London, 1974.
[28] Sunshine B, Wang, Y.H. “Qi, Rui Dan and
Self-excitation”, Journal of World Science 1,
197—212, 2003. Article No. 20030107,
http://www.nobelac.com/science/jws/jws200301/
Web/paperforJWS/new333qipaperjws.pdf,
accessed June 2005.
[29] Liang, SY., WU, W.C, T h e R o o t s o f I l l n e s s
P a r t 1 - J i n g , Q i , a n d S h e n , Syl Wushi
Newsletter, Vol.1, No. 4, 2001.
http://www.shouyuliang.com/newsletter/v1n4/v1n
4a1.shtml, accessed June 2005.
[30] Schwaninger, M., “Intelligent Organisations: An
Integrative Framework”, Sys. Res. 18, pp.137-158,
2001.
[31] Mead R., International Management:
cross-cultural dimensions, Oxford: Blackwell,
1994.
[32] Yeh R S., “On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese
and Japanese values”, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Management, Volume 6, (1) 149-60, 1989.
[33] Li, J., Lam, K., Fu, P.P., “Family-oriented
collectivism and its effects on firm performance: a
comparison between overseas Chinese and
Foreign Firms in China”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Volume Eight, Number
Four, 364-379, 2000.
16 Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006
[34] Bond, M. H., “Finding universal dimensions of
individual variation in multicultural studies of
values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55.6, 1009-1015, 1988.
[35] Lowe, S., Oswick, C., Culture: The Invisible
Filters, Ch. 6, 90-116 in Gatley, S. Lessem, R. &
Altman, Y. (Eds.) Corporate management: A
transcultural odyssey, London: McGraw-Hill,
1996, 1996.
[36] Jackson, T., “Cultural values and management
ethics: a 10 Nation study”, Human Relations
54(10) 1267-1302
[37] Schwarz, E., 1994 (September), “A
Trandisciplinary Model for the Emergence,
Self-organisation and Evolution of Viable
Systems”, Presented at the International
Information, Systems Architecture and Technology,
Technical University of Wroclaw, Szklaska Poreba,
Polland
[38] Pye, L., Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style,
Quorum Books, New York, NY, 1992.
[39] Fan, Y., “A Classification of Chinese Culture”,
Cross Cultural Management, 7, 2, 3-10, 2002.
[40] Wang J, Wang GG, Ruona WEA and Rojewski
JW, “Confucian values and the implications for
International HRD”, Human Resource
Development International 8,3,311-326, 2005.
[41] Liu S., “Cultures within culture: unity and
diversity of two generations of employees in state-
owned enterprises”, Human Relations,
56,4,387-41, 2003.
[42] Hutchings K and Murray, “Australian expatriates’
experiences in working behind the Bamboo
Curtain: an examination of guanxi in
post-Communist China”, Asian Business
Management 1, 1-21, 2002.
[43] Speece, M., “Asian Management Style: an
introduction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Volume Sixteen, Number Two, 86-96, 2001.
[44] Redding, G., “The changing business scene in
Pacific Asia”, in McDonald, F. and Thorpe, R.,
(eds), Organisational Strategy and Technological
Adaptation to Global Change. Basingstoke:
Macmillan Business, 22-36, 1998.
[45] Newell, S., “The Transfer of Management
Knowledge to China: building learning
communities rather than translating western
textbooks?” Education and Training, 41, 6/7,
pp.286-293, 1999.
[46] Butterfield, F., China: Alive in the Bitter Sea,
Times Books, New York, NY, 1982.
[47] Boisot, M., Child, J., “From fiefs to clans and
network capitalism: explaining China's emerging
economic order”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 600-28, 1988.
[48] Shaw, S., Meier, J., “Second-generation' MNCs in
China”, China Business Review, 10-15, 1994.
[49] Kluckhohn, F., Strodbeck, F., Variations in Value
Orientations. Evanston, Ill., Row Peterson, 1961.