ࡱ> oqn`rxbjbj.~7%8888pl$& ""DDD###<&>&>&>&>&>&>&$'hI*b&ER#RRb&DD&R6DD<&R<&:#,f6T$D [? 8v# <&&0&$R+|+T$+T$#el###b&b&z^###&RRRRD D Applying Max Webers ideal type for cross-cultural research of organizational management The development of worlds economy and business has long ago pointed out the necessity of examining national specifics of various business cultures. G. Hofstede, M. Bond, K. S. Cameron, R. E. Quinn and other researches are well-known for their contributions to this field of study. Several global research programs of a comparative perspective are established in different countries, linking continents (one of the most recent and significant projects called MEADOW,  HYPERLINK "http://www.meadow-project.eu" www.meadow-project.eu). Unfortunately, the number and scale of the surveys conducted does not guarantee high reliability of the outcome received. The surveys results may not be acceptable from the statistical point of view and the selection of respondents is also not always valid. The reflection of such confuses can be seen in the latest paper of Jeffrey Blodgett, Aysen Bakir and Gregory Rose Test of the Validity of Hofstedes Cultural Framework[ Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 763]. We suggest that the researchers basic methodological and methodical orientations may have significant influence on the problem. These fundamental positions in the research methodology may be divided in two groups: 1) Massive quantitative research 2) Case-study The main way of treating this problem relies mostly upon quantitative methods: a researcher first analyses quantitative empirical data and then deduces some theoretical model, which serves as the basis for comparison of, for example, organizational management in different socio-cultural environments. Although this approach has its advantages in revealing comparable macro quantitative characteristics, it is limited as regards fixing the qualitative features of cultures. Mass quantitative surveys may be very representative. However the new knowledge they bring is likely to be superficial. Taking into account that social organization of business and organizational management are highly delicate and complex subjects of study the sketchy character of the quantitative analysis may limit the quality and value of the research results significantly. The difficulties of applying quantitative methods to the cross-cultural research should be given special attention. When analyzing respondents answers the researcher can not always guarantee the full elimination of the culture effect. That is we cannot be totally secure from the influence of the respondents culture on the process of interpretation and understanding the questions. For example reflecting on the results of the European comparative research of the organizational behavior Danish author states: It is not clear to which extent the differences in work organization between European countries can be explained by industrial characteristics of the firms or by the differences in social and cultural features and the specifics of the societys historical development [Anthony Arundel, Edward Lorenz, Bengt-Ake Lundvall and Antoine Valeyre, How Europes economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 16, Number 6, p.1187]. In the mentioned survey the focus of research was located within the borders of Europe. Obviously the cross-cultural research of a transcontinental nature hides much bigger risks of that sort. Without the simple and consistent preliminary hypotheses and clear systematical vision of the object the analyzing of the quantitative data in a cross-cultural survey may be significantly less effective. One of the main problems of the quantitative surveys in the field of management and business is that authors often tend to focus on the respondents estimative opinions regards what should be and what would be instead of paying more attention to revealing what really happens in the practices of employees everyday life in business organization. Even in the case of the studying of the practices respondents are often asked mostly about their opinions regards how these practices are existing and how they should exist. These methodological problems of contemporary quantitative surveys and the ways for solving them are closely dealt with in State University Higher University of Economics. The achievements made in this field in Russia are related first of all to Prof. Azer Efendiev, Prof E. Balabanova and others. Case-studies, on the one hand, enable researcher to analyze the phenomenon deeply, exploring various details and aspects of it (by using both quantitative and qualitative methods). On the other hand, case-studies are strictly limited by the particular object of research. The method of Ideal types proposed in the early XX century by German sociologist Max Weber enables researcher to conduct mass quantitative surveys at the same time providing the higher interpretative potential for the results making them less superficial. The main idea of the method is that before the empirical part of the research author generates simple and logically consistent model of the real object. That model, Ideal type, describing major qualitative characteristics of the object serves as a starting point for the further stages of research. Empirical survey is organized correspondingly to the ideal model. The results of the empirical part are then related and compared to those anticipated on the base of Ideal type. Finally the gap between the parameters of real and ideal objects is measured and analyzed. The advantages of the Ideal type method comparing to the more traditional quantitative survey is that when applied correctly and in a consecutive order it guarantees the internal logical congruence of the research results. Compared to the case-studies Max Webers method empowers us to overstep the limitation of only one or two concrete objects of empirical investigation. The complex nature of the Ideal type method is reflected in the dependence of its effectiveness on the adequacy of the Ideal type generated. This is where the authors competency, experience and qualification are important and where the qualitative methods could be highly instrumental. We consider Ideal type method to be very prospective when applied to the cross-cultural research in social sciences and in particular in the fields of organizational management and business social organization. As an example of the applying Ideal type method for the empirical study we are planning to employ the ideal type of the rational bureaucracy to explore the field of organizational management in Russia and in Denmark in our future research. =3;>O7KG=K9 01AB@0:B: Applying Max Weber s  ideal type for cross-cultural research of organizational management Global economy development has brought to the light the necessity to explore specific features of various national business-cultures. The main way of treating this problem relies mostly upon quantitative methods: a researcher first analyses quantitative empirical data and then deduces some theoretical model, which serves as the basis for comparison of, for example, organizational management in different socio-cultural environments. This approach is presented by classical authors (G.Hofsted, M.Bond, etc) and in the modern international research projects, such as GLOBE. Although this approach has its advantages in revealing comparable macro quantitative characteristics, it is limited as regards fixing the qualitative features of cultures. An alternative way to tackle the problem is based on qualitative methods. Case-study (originating from W.Thomas and F. Znanezky) is known to be of high efficiency concerning the identification of the unique specifics of the case and, therefore, finding the best business solutions in the particular situations (P.Druker and others). However, this approach also has its disadvantage in the lack of attention to the socio-cultural macro parameters. The qualitative method of ideal types (M.Weber), in contrast to others, implies that the researcher firstly creates a theoretical model by certain logic reasoning (the ideal type) which describes a few basic qualitative parameters of the subject. Then this ideal type serves as a basis for estimation and comparison of the variety of real phenomena. We employ the ideal type of the rational bureaucracy to explore the field of organizational management in Russia and in Denmark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www.meadow-project.eu).  A>60;5=8N, >18;85 ?@>2>48<KE 8AA;54>20=89 =5 2A5340 >15A?5G8205B :0G5AB2> ?@>45;K205<>9 @01>BK. 57C;LB0BK, ?>;CG05<K5 8AA;54>20B5;O<8, =5 2A5340 >B25G0NB B@51>20=8O< 4>AB>25@=>AB8, <5B>4K  20;84=>AB8, 0 2K1>@:8 ?@>2>48<KE 8AA;54>20=89  @5?@575=B0B82=>AB8. >-=0H5<C <=5=8N, MB> A2O70=> 2 7=0G8B5;L=>9 AB5?5=8 A 107>2K<8 <5B>48G5A:8<8 8 <5B>4>;>38G5A:8<8 >@85=B0F8O<8 CG5=KE. -B8 >@85=B0F88 <>6=> @0745;8BL =0 425 3@C??K: <0AA>2K5 :>;8G5AB25==K5 >?@>AK 8AA;54>20=85 >B45;L=KE :59A>2 0AA>2K5 :>;8G5AB25==K5 >?@>AK A?>A>1=K >15A?5G8BL 2KA>:89 C@>25=L @5?@575=B0B82=>AB8, >4=0:> ?@54>AB02;O5<0O 8<8 8=D>@<0F8O G0AB> =>A8B ?>25@E=>AB=K9 E0@0:B5@. #G8BK20O 2KA>:CN B>=:>ABL 8 A;>6=>ABL ?@54<5B0 A>F80;L=>9 >@30=870F88 187=5A0 8 >@30=870F8>==>3> <5=546<5=B0, AE5<0B8G=>ABL :>;8G5AB25==KE <5B>4>2 =0:;04K205B ACI5AB25==K5 >3@0=8G5=8O =0 :0G5AB2> 8 F5==>ABL ?>;CG05<>9 A 8E ?><>ILN 8=D>@<0F88. 5>1E>48<> >B45;L=> ?>4G5@:=CBL A;>6=>ABL ?@8<5=5=8O :>;8G5AB25==KE <5B>4>2 ?@8 ?@>2545=88 :@>AA-:C;LBC@=KE 8AA;54>20=89. =0;878@CO >B25BK @5A?>=45=B>2, 8AA;54>20B5;L =5 2A5340 <>65B 30@0=B8@>20BL >BACBAB285 MDD5:B0 :C;LBC@K ?@8 2>A?@8OB88 8 ?>=8<0=88 @5A?>=45=B0<8 87 @07=KE :C;LBC@=KE A@54 >4=8E 8 B5E 65 2>?@>A>2. 0?@8<5@, @0AA<0B@820O @57C;LB0BK A@02=8B5;L=>3> 8AA;54>20=8O >@30=870F8>==>3> ?>2545=8O 2 AB@0=0E 2@>?K, <564C=0@>4=K9 :>;;5:B82 8AA;54>20B5;59 ?8H5B: >7=8:05B 2>?@>A, 2 :0:>9 AB5?5=8 @07;8G=0O 7=0G8<>ABL B5E 8;8 8=KE D>@< >@30=870F88 B@C40 A@548 2@>?59A:8E AB@0= <>65B 1KBL >1JOA=5=0 @07;8G8O<8 2 >B@0A;52KE E0@0:B5@8AB8:0E ?@54?@8OB89 8;8 65 @07=8F59 2 A>F80;L=>-:C;LBC@=KE ?0@0<5B@0E 8 2 >A>15==>ABOE 8AB>@8G5A:>3> @0728B8O >1I5AB20 [Anthony Arundel, Edward Lorenz, Bengt-Ake Lundvall and Antoine Valeyre, How Europe s economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 16, Number 6, p.1187]. >4G5@:=5<, GB> 2 ?@82545==>< 2KH5 ?@8<5@5 @5GL H;0 > A@02=8B5;L=>< 8AA;54>20=88 2 ?@545;0E 2@>?K. /A=>, GB> :@>AA:C;LBC@=>5 8AA;54>20=85, =>AOI55 :@>AA-:>=B8=5=B0;L=K9 E0@0:B5@ B08B 2 A515 5I5 1>;LH5 >?0A=>AB59 ?>4>1=>3> @>40. !>>B=5A5=85 <564C A>1>9 G8A;>2KE @O4>2 2 :@>AA-:C;LBC@=>< 8AA;54>20=88 157 >?>@K =0 B5 8;8 8=K5 ?@>ABK5, => ;>38G5A:8 A2O70==K5 ?@5420@8B5;L=K5 38?>B57K 8 A8AB5<=K5 ?@54AB02;5=8O >1 >1J5:B5 A=8605B F5==>ABL 2A59 8AA;54>20B5;LA:>9 @01>BK. Z[\`o      # / 1 2 E H I O P W X Z \ ] ^ ڷڷڷʯҧҟҔ}}}}k#jh~d h^ UmH sH h>?AAbbbbbddddBffhhhjjllPnfnnnn4ooo"pVppppqPqRquuxxxx"x$x(x*xhjhU h7]hUh h`h hh h^Jhh^JmH sH hh^JJ4=0 87 >A=>2=KE ?@>1;5< :>;8G5AB25==KE 8AA;54>20=89 2 >1;0AB8 <5=546<5=B0 8 187=5A0 A>AB>8B 2 B><, GB> 02B>@K, :0: ?@028;>, D>:CA8@CNBAO =0 2KO2;5=88 =5 @50;L=KE D0:B>2 :0A0B5;L=> ?@0:B8: ?>2545=8O @5A?>=45=B>2 2 >@30=870F88, => >F5=>G=KE AC645=89 2 >B=>H5=88 B5E 8;8 8=KE 0A?5:B>2. 065 2 A;CG05 87CG5=8O A>F80;L=KE ?@0:B8:, @5A?>=45=B0<, :0: ?@028;>, 7040NB 2>?@>AK ?> ?>2>4C 8E <=5=8O > B><, :0: MB8 ?@0:B8:8 ?@>B5:0NB 8;8 4>;6=K ?@>B5:0BL. 0==0O ?@>1;5<0 A>2@5<5==KE :>;8G5AB25==KE 8AA;54>20=89 8 A?>A>1 55 @5H5=8O ?>4@>1=> 0=0;878@CNBAO 2 #-(- (>A:20) B0:8<8 CG5=K<8, :0: .. -D5=4852 8 4@. AA;54>20=8O :59A>2 >1;040NB A >4=>9 AB>@>=K ?@58<CI5AB2>< 3;C1>:>3> @0AA<>B@5=8O 87CG05<>3> O2;5=8O ?@8 ?><>I8 @07=KE <5B>4>2 8 8=AB@C<5=B>2 (:0: :0G5AB25==KE, B0: 8 :>;8G5AB25==KE). ! 4@C3>9 AB>@>=K, >=8 >3@0=8G5=K 3@0=8F0<8 8AA;54C5<>3> :59A0. 5B>4 8450;L=KE B8?>2, ?@54;>65==K9 2 =0G0;5 %% 25:0 0:A>< 515@><, ?>72>;O5B, A >4=>9 AB>@>=K, ?@>2>48BL <0AA>2K5 :>;8G5AB25==K5 >?@>AK, 8, A 4@C3>9 AB>@>=K, >15A?5G8205B @57C;LB0B0< 8AA;54>20=8O 2KA>:89 8=B5@?@5B0B82=K9 ?>B5=F80;, 45;05B 8E <5=55 ?>25@E=>AB=K<8. 5B>4 A>AB>8B 2 B><, GB> 4> ?@>2545=8O >A=>2=>9 ?>;52>9 :>;8G5AB25==>9 G0AB8 8AA;54>20=8O 02B>@ <KA;5==> :>=AB@C8@C5B C?@>I5==CN <>45;L 8AA;54C5<>9 @50;L=>AB8. -B0 ?@>AB0O <>45;L, 8450;L=K9 B8?, 2KABC?05B 2 40;L=59H5< A2>5>1@07=>9 B>G:>9 >BAG5B0 8 2K@0605B, 2 ?5@2CN >G5@54L, :0G5AB25==K5 E0@0:B5@8AB8:8 >1J5:B0. 0==K5 ?>;52>3> 8AA;54>20=8O A>?>AB02;ONBAO A 8450;L=K< B8?><, 8 70<5@O5BAO @07@K2 <564C @50;L=K< >1J5:B>< 8 8450;L=>-B8?8G5A:8<. @58<CI5AB20 <5B>40 8450;L=KE B8?>2 ?> >B=>H5=8N : 1>;55 B@048F8>==><C :>;8G5AB25==><C <5B>4C A>AB>8B 2 B><, GB> ?@8 CA;>288 A2>59 ?>A;54>20B5;L=>9 @50;870F88 >= 30@0=B8@C5B 2=CB@5==NN ;>38G5A:CN A2O70==>ABL @57C;LB0B>2 8AA;54>20=8O.  ?> >B=>H5=8N : :59A0< ?@58<CI5AB2> 2 B><, GB> ?@8<5=5=85 <0AA>2>3> >?@>A0 ?>72>;O5B 87153=CBL >3@0=8G5=8O 3@0=8F0<8 >4=>3>-42CE :>=:@5B=KE >1J5:B>2. !;>6=>ABL <5B>40 8450;L=KE B8?>2 ?@>O2;O5BAO 2 2KA>:>9 7028A8<>AB8 @57C;LB0B>2 8AA;54>20=8O >B 045:20B=>AB8 A:>=AB@C8@>20==>3> 8450;L=>3> B8?0 @50;L=><C >1J5:BC 8AA;54>20=8O.  MB>< 0A?5:B5, ?> =0H5<C <=5=8N, ?@>O2;O5BAO 02B>@A:0O :><?5B5=F8O 8AA;54>20B5;O 8 >G5=L ?>;57=K< <>65B >:070BLAO ?@8<5=5=85 :0G5AB25==KE <5B>4>2. K AG8B05< 2KA>:> ?5@A?5:B82=K< >1@0I5=85 : <5B>4C 8450;L=KE B8?>2 ?@8 ?@>2545=88 :@>AA-:C;LBC@=KE 8AA;54>20=89 A>F80;L=>9 @50;L=>AB8, 8, 2 B>< G8A;5, >@30=870F8>==>3> <5=546<5=B0 8 A>F80;L=>9 >@30=870F88 187=5A0 2 @07=KE AB@0=0E.  :0G5AB25 ?@8<5@0 ?@8<5=5=8O <5B>40 450;L=KE B8?>2 2 M<?8@8G5A:>< 8AA;54>20=88 <K <>65< ?@825AB8 ?;0=8@CNI55AO :@>AA-:C;LBC@=>5 8AA;54>20=85 >@30=870F8>==>3> <5=546<5=B0 2 >AA88 8 2 0=88, 2 :>B>@>< <K =0<5@5205<AO >?5@5BLAO =0 @07@01>B0==K9 0:A>< 515@>< 8450;L=K9 B8? @0F8>=0;L=>9 1N@>:@0B88.     PAGE  PAGE 1 x x"x&x(x,x.x2x4xFxHxJx`xbxdxfxhxjxlxnxpxrx $dha$gdh]hgd &`#$gd/*x.x0x4x6xBxDxFxHxJxLxXxZx\x^x`xbxdxfxlxnxpxrxhhoh?hmh0JmHnHuh/h h0Jjh0JUjhUh,1h. A!"R#n$n% DyK www.meadow-project.euyK Thttp://www.meadow-project.eu/yX;H,]ą'cB@B 1KG=K9CJ_HaJmHsHtHBA@B A=>2=>9 H@8DB 0170F0XiX 1KG=0O B01;8F04 l4a .k. 5B A?8A:0pp & !5B:0 B01;8FK7:V0J @J 86=89 :>;>=B8BC;  E$4)@4 ><5@ AB@0=8FK:U@!: ^ 8?5@AAK;:0 >*B*ph88~[\wxYZ23Ucd?@ LM|}STKMNOPQhrs\!!!##$$%%=%\%z%{%''(**,,+/,/#0$0225566777777777777777888888800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0y00@0y00@0y00@0y00@0@0@0@0@0@0y00H00000|X \wxYZ23Ucd? LM|}STKr!!#z%{%'(*7778{00{00{00{00{00{00 t({00{00{00{0 0 {00{0 05{0 0{00{00 {00 {00{00{00{00 5{00 {00 {00{00{00{00 @0{00{00E}K00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{000@0X@0X 00$ $$$'^ 1M} #%M&'(*<*xrx!$%&()*+,-.0>*1xrx"'/=px#1]s8X  '! !8 !@ 0(  B S  ?8 N#N]IN$^INt?N,DNlDNDNDN,DNlDNDNDN,D 00** E!S!S!8     66"11 K!Z!Z!8 B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNameV *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType P       Y]^fpz"*2[!777777777777778888[!7777777777777788883cQh[!777777777777888777777777777888.4 .O^XB%4^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH..4 ^XBtsn=`p 5~ _ t >)T(^gPF f#\NWE!Y;Q/ }S@77@>:8=  Oh+'0(P\lx      The prospects of applying Max Webers Ideal types theory to the qualitative comparative socio cultural research of business institutions in Denmark and in Russia UserNormal 20Microsoft Office Word@3N>@|Z@wF@) V/՜.+,D՜.+, hp  qHomee7 The prospects of applying Max Webers Ideal types theory to the qualitative comparative socio cultural research of business institutions in Denmark and in Russia   8@ _PID_HLINKSAtMEhttp://www.meadow-project.eu/   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?ABCDEFGIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdeghijklmpRoot Entry Fg? rData @1TableH+WordDocument.~SummaryInformation(^DocumentSummaryInformation8fCompObjq  F Microsoft Office Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89q