ArticlePDF Available

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians' behaviour: a preliminary attempt to develop a taxonomy for three work contexts

December 2012
International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management V(6):696-733

Authors:

Abinash Panda

Management Development Institute Gurgaon

Rajen K Gupta

Management Development Institute Gurgaon

Indians are perceived to be highly contradictory and inconsistent in their manifested behavioural patterns. Findings of various research studies have indicated that at the core of perceived ‘contradictions’ in the manifested behavioural patterns of the Indians lies in the fact that Indian behaviour is determined more by the situation or the context rather than the personality. Sinha and Kanungo (1997) mentioned that ‘context sensitivity among Indians manifests itself in relation to three components of the environment, which are desh (place), kal (time) and patra (person). Sinha et al. (2002) have urged scholars to attempt a more systematic taxonomy of situations to develop generalised cultural modes of behaviour. This paper is at best a baby step in that direction. In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct the context sensitive behaviour of Indians using an ‘interactional’ framework and subsequently presented a behavioural taxonomy, which would help understand how Indians with different worldviews would behave in different work contexts. We have identified three ideal types of Indians, who are the products of their early socialisations. The three work contexts, we have identified in this paper are three different kinds of business organisations

The taxonomy of Indian behaviour

…

Figures - uploaded by Abinash Panda

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Abinash Panda

Content may be subject to copyright.

nt. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’

behaviour: a preliminary attempt to develop a

taxonomy for three work contexts

Abinash Panda*

Talent Management and Leadership Development,

Suzlon Energy Limited,

Suzlon One Earth,

Hadapsar, Pune 411 028, Maharashtra, India

Fax: +91 20 40122100

E-mail: abinash.panda@suzlon.com

*Corresponding author

Rajen K. Gupta

Human Behaviour and Organizational Development,

Management Development Institute,

Gurgaon, Haryana, India

E-mail: rgupta@mdi.ac.in

Abstract: Indians are perceived to be highly contradictory and inconsistent in

their manifested behavioural patterns. Findings of various research studies have

indicated that at the core of perceived ‘contradictions’ in the manifested

behavioural patterns of the Indians lies in the fact that Indian behaviour is

determined more by the situation or the context rather than the personality.

Sinha and Kanungo (1997) mentioned that ‘context sensitivity among Indians

manifests itself in relation to three components of the environment, which are

desh (place), kal (time) and patra (person). Sinha et al. (2002) have urged

scholars to attempt a more systematic taxonomy of situations to develop

generalised cultural modes of behaviour. This paper is at best a baby step in

that direction. In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct the context

sensitive behaviour of Indians using an ‘interactional’ framework and

subsequently presented a behavioural taxonomy, which would help understand

how Indians with different worldviews would behave in different work

contexts. We have identified three ideal types of Indians, who are the products

of their early socialisations. The three work contexts, we have identified in this

paper are three different kinds of business organisations namely family owned,

government and Western multinational organisations.

Keywords: context-sensitive behaviour; Indian way of thinking; cultural

characteristics of Indians; multi-minded Indians; familial Hindu worldview;

Anglo-Saxon worldview.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Panda, A. and Gupta, R.K.

(xxxx) ‘Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians’ behaviour: a

preliminary attempt to develop a taxonomy for three work contexts’, Int. J.

Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. x, No. x, pp.xx–xx.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Biographical notes: Abinash Panda is the General Manager and Head of

Talent Management and Leadership Development working with Suzlon Energy

Limited, Pune, India. He is a Fellow of Management from Management

Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon and an alumnus of International

University of Japan (IUJ) where he is specialised in Comparative Business and

Management. Prior to this current assignment, he held the position of Post-

Doctoral Research Fellow with Tata Management Training Centre (TMTC),

Pune. He has published around 27 research papers in various international and

national journals such as Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management,

Asian Case Research Journal, Int. J. Diversity in Organizations, Communities

and Nations Global Business Review, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,

Vikalpa, Management Review, Psychology and Developing Societies, etc. He

has also presented several papers in various national and international

conferences including Academy of Management (2007) and Asia Pacific

Researchers in Organization Studies (APROS 12).

Rajen K. Gupta is a Professor in the area of Human Behaviour and

Organisational Development and area at the Management Development

Institute, Gurgaon. He is on the international editorial boards of journals titled

Int. J. Cross Cultural Management and Journal of Research Practice. He has

published around 60 papers in various national and international journals such

as Asian Case Research Journal, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business

Management, Global Business Review, Economic and Political Weekly,

Vikalpa, Management Review, etc. He has authored two books titled

Implementing Human Resource Development (Rawat, Jaipur) and Towards the

Optimal Organisation: Integrating Culture and Management (Excel Books,

Delhi) and co-edited Designing and Developing Organisations for Tomorrow

(Response). He has co-authored a text book titled Organizational Behaviour.

“The most difficult thing is that the Indians will tell you one thing, think

another, and do third thing, which is not what a Dane would do.” – A Danish

Manager (Hughes, 2002).

1 The background

“We live in a global environment.” (Tsui et al., 2007). Organisations have no choice but

to operate in a multicultural and multinational context, which tends to be complex and a

bit fuzzy, if the managerial and leadership challenges inherent in the environment are not

understood. In recent past, developing countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China

(BRIC economic bloc) are being targeted by multinationals from developed countries. An

increasing number of organisations from the developed world have been exporting work

to developing countries. Metaphors of a ‘flat world’ (Friedman, 2005) or a ‘global

village’ (Ger, 1999) are being used by scholars to describe the contemporary business

world. Though physical distance or time difference ceases to be barriers for foreign

investment, ‘cultural distance’ due to the heterogeneity in the way employees from

different nations/societies behave, could possibly pose a serious challenge to

multinational organisations (MNOs) to become optimally effective. Hence, corporate

leaders see the value in understanding and appreciating employees’ behaviour in a cross-

cultural and global context. It makes a business sense, for corporate leaders to understand

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

and appreciate cultural differences between societies and develop strategies to deal with

the dysfunctional manifestations and leverage the productive and functional aspects of

such differences.

2 Emergence of India as a major economic power

The first quarter of 2010 saw Indian companies involved in a total of 134 mergers and

acquisitions (M&A) deals. The largest deal during the period was executed by Bharti

Airtel Ltd which acquired Zain Africa, the African arm of Kuwaiti telecom group Zain,

for $10.7 billion. Out of the total 134 transactions, transaction sizes were known for 72

deals and the median value stood at $25 million and this was very higher than the median

value of $10 million seen during Q1, 2009.1 Outbound M&A investments in India

quadrupled in the first half of 2010. According to Thomson Reuters M&A report, about

$40 billion was spent in M&A by Indian firms in the first six months of 2010, by far the

best performing half ever since 2007. On the overall, about a sixth of the total business

deals, at about $242.1 billion, undertaken in Asia, were done by Indian companies,

marking a sixth of the 5,078 deals.

On the other hand, inbound M&As into India saw the purchase of Indian companies

with Abbot investing a whopping $3.72 billion for the takeover of Piramal Healthcare’s

formulations business. On sector basis, the Indian telecoms sector led in the deals with a

cumulative $13.8 billion worth of investments, both inbound and outbound.2

With the increasing trend of globalisation, the impact of globalisation has led to a fast

changing environment the boundaries for business diminishing day by day so is the

movement of people between different countries and cultures. The requirement of MNOs

like expansion plans in international market has continually increased the need to

understand the cultural dimensions of different countries to achieve better results.

Along with the rapid development of technology, increasing social mobility,

globalisation of economy and the emergence of cultural diversity, intercultural human

contact at both individual and organisational levels is increasing (Brislin and Yoshida,

1994; Chen, 2007). On the one hand, the wide-ranged expansion of human contacts calls

for people’s sensitivity to cultural diversity as well as understanding the behaviour of the

people socialised in different cultures.

2.1 India: a difficult country to relocate to

The economic activities suggest an increased presence of international managers in India,

resulting in greater interaction between Indian and non-Indian ‘expatriate’ (particularly

Western) managers/executives. Cross-cultural researchers have long emphasised the

importance of gaining an understanding of a host country’s national culture for

managerial success in overseas business operations. Multinational corporations (MNCs)

recruit manpower from the host country, who are socialised to their native culture, and

thereby, develop work-related values, beliefs, behaviours and practices unique and

specific to the country (Adler and Jelinek, 1986; Hofstede, 1993; Laurent, 1983). Such

work-related values, attitudes and practices prevalent in the ‘country of operation’ or

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

‘host’ country might be different from the ‘country of origin’ of the MNCs. Such

differences tend to create problems of adjustment for the expatriates in the ‘host’ country,

which tend to contribute to the sub-optimal performance of the organisation in delivering

business results.

The understanding of organisational behaviour in different cultural contexts has been

a formidable challenge for academics and practitioners.

Understanding the behaviour of Indians has always been a challenge for both

expatriates and Indians.

A recent survey released by Brookfield Global Relocation Services Company3 points

out that India is the second most difficult country to relocate after China. Among all the

respondents of the survey, China was cited by 16% of respondents, followed by India

(14%) and Russia (7%). China and India always have been among the top seven

destinations presenting the greatest assignment challenges. With one exception (when it

was ranked in second place), China has always been cited as the most challenging

destination for expatriates.

In spite of being considered the second most difficult country to relocate, India is one

of the most attractive countries for non-Indians. “Indian companies are becoming

global...and very attractive (to work for),” said Ulrich Dade, chairman of Amrop, a

leading global executive search firm.4 According to the research study by the firm, based

on a survey of chief executives and expatriates, the demand for foreign talent has

accelerated because of the rise of so-called sunrise industries such as organised retail and,

M&A besides the global expansion plans of Indian companies seeking to sharpen their

competitive edge through foreign expertise and leadership culture. For expatriates, the

attractions of working for Indian employers include the ‘India experience’, a larger

playing field and a challenging business agenda.

Mahindra Navistar Ltd, a joint venture between Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd and

Navistar Inc. of the US to make commercial vehicles, has two expatriates in leadership

roles. Vodafone Essar Ltd is headed by Dutchman Marten Pieters. Bharti Airtel Ltd’s

director of customer service delivery is Canadian Carol Borghesi, Airtel’s enterprise

services division is headed by an American, David Nishball, who oversees all business-

to-business activities, including wholesale carrier and corporate markets – both within

India and globally. Prof Liam Maxwell of Eton College mentioned in his interview to the

Time magazine “I tell the boys that 30 per cent of them are going to work for Chinese and

Indian companies.”5

2.2 Challenges of working in India and with Indians

Till now, there has been limited interest amongst the academic scholars to explore and

articulate how the expatriates adjust to the socio-cultural realities of India. Arora (2005)

refers to the findings of various studies carried out by scholars such as Sperling (1969)

and Gabeler (1996), who have explored how German expatriates adjusted and adapted in

Indian work context. He also mentions that Kim (2003), in her study on expatriates, has

focused on the Koreans.

Dowling (1999) discovered that most Westerners perceive India to be ‘culturally

distant’. Boston Consultancy Group admitted that India is essentially a multicultural

society and most of the MNCs do not understand the diversity and multiplural nature of

society and the different stakeholders in this country.

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

The findings of a limited number of research studies (Arora, 2005) have indicated that

• Indians tend to view expatriates as highly professional with high- and well-

articulated aspirations, tend to use ‘delegation’ as a leadership tool, friendly, willing

to understand India.

• Expatriates are also perceived to be a bit rigid and not willing to adapt, tend to

remain aloof, look down upon Indians with limited trust for the Indians.

• Expatriates view Indian employees as hard working, loyal to the company and highly

motivated to do new things. They are also perceived as intelligent, well-educated,

willing to develop others, friendly, positive and open towards outsiders.

• They are also perceived to be ‘non-committal to result’, ‘unreliable’, ‘poor team

players’ and ‘job hoppers’.

Working in India and with Indians has its own challenges. It is never easy. Kumar (2004)

mentioned that expatriates generally find it tough and wooly to negotiate with the Indian

negotiation team. Indians are perceived to behave in a highly inconsistent manner.

Indians rarely present a unified face to the negotiators across the table. Hence, the

foreigners find it difficult to devise and articulate a negotiating strategy for any

negotiation with Indians. Further, ‘it makes it less worthwhile for the other negotiator to

continue to negotiate in this uncertain environment because it is unclear to him or her

whether the negotiation will bear fruit at all’ (Kumar, 2004, p.51) (Italics added). When

Enron was only a pipeline company, it lost a major contract in India because local

authorities felt that it was pushing negotiations too fast. In fact, the loss of the contract

underlines the important role that cultural differences play in international negotiation.

International business deals not only cross borders, but also cross cultures. Culture

profoundly influences how people think, communicate and behave. It also affects

the kinds of transactions they make and the way they negotiate them. Differences in

culture between business executives can possibly create barriers that impede or

completely stymie the negotiating process.

Why is it so tough to understand an Indian? The comment made by Prof H. Azuma

during one of his interactions with Dr J.B.P. Sinha probably captures the challenge. His

comment was, ‘You Indians always have at least three theories whatever I say’ (Sinha,

2005a). As the Western expatriate manager, Silvio Napoli, once put it, “To succeed in

India you have to be one-half monk and one-half warrior. So far, I have learnt to develop

my monk part.” (cited by Kumar, 2005, p.6).

Indians have been experienced differently by different groups of people, which have

been articulated by Sinha (2005b). He presents the evolving phases in the understanding

of Indian mindset historically in the ever evolving cultural and social contexts. The

colonial perspective was based on the assumption that Indians were ‘half devil half child’

(Kipling, 1920) and hence were considered to be authoritarian (Lewis, 1962), narcissistic

with weak super ego (Spratt, 1966) having an inner sense of instability and insecurity to

the extent that “nothing and nobody can be relied upon, not even one’s own self”

(Carstairs, 1971, p.54). Consequently, they have poor emotional involvement, callousness

towards others especially lesser men, mock hospitality, supremely self-centred attitude,

utter collapse of self-control in the face of strong emotions (Carstairs, 1971, p.46),

absence of commitment to keep promises that they freely make, lack of sustained efforts

for realising collective objectives, low masculine qualities, high dependence, high distrust

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

of authority and inability to handle emotions that are either suppressed or burst into

uncontrolled temper tantrum, and above all contradictory behaviours reflecting

‘tremendous gap between ideals and performance’ (Narain, 1957).

Truth is extolled, but all kinds of falsehood are practiced; honesty is valued, but

dishonesty is rampant; kindness is virtue, but Indians laugh at others’ physical

deformity or discomfiture…Indians are spiritual but their greed for material

things is insatiable (Narain, 1957, p.130).

Nakamura (1964) reported that Indians do not separate the actual from the ideal and

engage in fantasising, i.e. “….free, boundless, and extravagant, and often goes to

extreme” (p.142).

Even the findings of many cross-national comparative studies have not helped. The

research findings have been at times contradictory in nature. Contradictions in research

findings led Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.94) to acknowledge that ‘studies of Indian

culture and behaviour often yield inconsistent and contradictory findings’ (Sinha and

Kanungo, 1997, p.94).

In comparative perspective, Hsu (1963) posited that while Chinese are situation

centred, Americans individual centred, Indians are supernatural centred. Nakane (1964)

compared Indians with Japanese symbolically in terms of ‘logic and smile’. She observed

The Indian, who loves talking in logic, takes up an opposing stand without

hesitation and tries to impose oneself upon the other, regardless of the situation,

the statuses of the two parties…Most Japanese become irritated when they talk

with Indians, because they [Japanese] are not understood by them [Indians] and

are not used to following Indian logic. In most cases, they [Japanese] are

defeated ….and end up frustrated, while Indians remain perfectly unruffled

(p.435).

The behavioural patterns of Indians are perceived to be situational and context sensitive,

which seems to be at the core of the variability in behavioural patterns.

2.3 Scope and organisation of this paper

Sinha et al. (2002) suggested that Sinha and Kanungo’s (1997) conceptualisation of

‘context-sensitive behaviour’ of the Indians needed to be further investigated and

researchers should ‘attempt a more systematic taxonomy of situations pertaining to

different life roles (e.g. work, social, family, religion, community, leisure, etc.) and

stratified for various demographic, socio-economic and psychological factors’. A review

of literature indicates that not much progress has been made in that direction.

In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct the context-sensitive behaviour of

Indians using an ‘interactional’ framework and subsequently presented a behavioural

taxonomy, which would help to understand how Indians with different worldviews would

behave in different work contexts. We have identified three ideal types of Indians, who

are the products of their early socialisations. The three work contexts, we have identified

in this paper, are three different kinds of business organisations namely family-owned,

government and foreign (mainly Western) multinational business organisations. We have

not included social and other non-work contexts.

This paper is organised into five sections. Section 2 attempts to summarise the

findings of various cross-national comparative and India-specific studies to brief the

readers on the contradictory nature of research findings on India. Section 3 deals with

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

the findings of various research studies focusing on the context-sensitive nature of Indian

behaviour, including the probable reasons why an Indian might possibly behave in such

an unpredictable way.

Section 4 has elaborated how three ideal types of Indians are the products of their

early socialisations in family and educational institutions, followed by Section 5, where

we have presented the taxonomy of behavioural patterns by three-way mapping of five

behavioural patterns, three ideal types of Indians and three work contexts. Section 6

summarises the central thesis of our argument.

2.3.1 The ‘interactional’ framework for deconstructing Indian behaviour

In the debate over what determines an individual’s behaviour – the situation or the person

herself/himself – there are three strands of argument. The first strand of argument

indicates that behaviour lies within the person (dispositional); the second strand, known

as ‘situationalist’ perspective, counter-argues to indicate that the situation is salient in

influencing behaviour (situational) (Mischel, 1968). The third strand of argument

integrates both, known as ‘interactionist’ approach, to say that behaviour is the result of

the interaction between person and situation (interactional). The individuals do manifest

stable differences in their general behavioural trends, if behavioural observations are

aggregated across situations (Epstein, 1979). Funder’s personality triad (2005) draws on

all three approaches and expresses the same through the following equation:

Behaviour person situation

Behaviour (person, situation)f

=×

We tend to agree with Funder’s argument that the ‘manifested’/demonstrated behaviour

of a person is the result of interaction between ‘who’ is behaving and in which situation.

This would be the basis for ‘deconstructing’ the context-sensitive nature of Indian

behavioural pattern. It is a two step process. In the first step, we will unravel how the

‘person’ is a product of socialisation process. In the second step, we would attempt to

deconstruct how a person would behave in different work contexts. We have identified

three work contexts and three ideal types of Indians.

3 Findings on the cultural characteristics of Indian society

India is a unique nation with diversity and inherent contradictions. A brief overview of

India’s place in various country clusters in various cross-national comparative studies

reveals that the Indian cultural profile is too complex to be easily pigeonholed.

Researchers have placed India in Anglo, Latin American, Far Eastern, South Asian and

even as an unclassifiable culture! This makes understanding India and Indians equally

challenging for expatriates and academic scholars.

Findings of many cross-national comparative studies have indicated the following:

1 India is one of the most diverse nations in existence with religious and geographic

diversity (Gannon, 1994, 2004).

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

2 India is a tradition bound society (Gannon, 1994, 2004; Schwartz, 1999) and

conservative in nature (Schwartz, 1999).

3 India is a highly status conscious society attaching saliency to hierarchy orientation

(Gannon, 1994, 2004; The GLOBE study, 2002; Trompenaars, 1993) with high

power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Saliency is attached to perceived social status

(Gannon, 1994, 2004), which is accorded on the basis of ‘who’ and ‘what’ the person

is (Trompenaars, 1993).

4 Indian society is moderately collectivist (Hofstede, 1980) that attaches saliency to

the group orientation (The GLOBE study, 2002). The society is also found to be

particularistic (Trompenaars, 1993).

5 People in India tend to behave as dictated by circumstances (Trompenaars, 1993).

In work domain, managerial actions and decisions are guided by what are judged to

be ‘right’ vis-à-vis what is considered ‘wrong’ in ethico-moral evaluative

framework. They are less pragmatic and more moralistic in their managerial

behaviour and actions (England, 1975, 1978).

6 Gender inequality exists in Indian society (Hofstede, 1980; Inglehart, 2000; The

GLOBE Study, 2002).

Gopalan and Rivera (1997) have used the five-dimensional Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

(1961) framework to mention that Indian society is past-oriented, accepting a subjugated

relationship with nature, where salvation is the ultimate goal of human being and human

nature is generally accepted to be evil and unchangeable. Indians are socialised to attach

saliency to hierarchy as well as collectivistic orientations.

A series of studies conducted by Sinha and his colleagues (Sinha, 1980, 1982,

1990a,b, 1993, 1997, 2005a; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997; Sinha and Sinha, 1995; Sinha

and Verma, 1987; Sinha et al., 1994, 2001b, 2002, 2003) have indicated the following:

1 Indians tend to attach saliency to hierarchy and power and status

2 Indians tend to prefer personalised relationship marked with emotional affinity

3 they tend to be collectivistic and particularistic (in-group vs. out-group orientation)

4 Indians tend to attach saliency to family

5 Indians are perceived corrupt, hypocrites and are less action-oriented

6 the behaviour of the Indians is situational and context sensitive.

3.1 Contradictions in the findings of studies on behavioural pattern of the

Indians

Scholars have discovered three areas of contradictions with respect to the behavioural

patterns of the Indians.

First, although India has been characterised as a collectivist society (Hofstede, 1980)

in which the family is central, Indians have also an individualistic streak which is most

evident in interaction with out-group members (e.g. Derné, 2000; Kakar, 1981;

Paranjape, 1988; Roland, 1988; Sinha, 1979, 2000). Paranjape (1988) has argued that

spiritual pursuits have always been individualistic in nature. Research on the valence and

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

psychological proximity to family among the older and younger generations has revealed

that there is a mix of both individualist and collectivist orientations in family life (Sinha,

1979).

Secondly, findings of studies conducted by Roland (1988), Gannon (2004) and Panda

(2004) have indicated the religious and spiritualistic orientations of the Indians. However,

these findings are in stark contrast to findings of a series of studies conducted by Sinha

and his colleagues. None of their studies could discover religious orientation of Indians.

This led Sinha et al. (2003) to admit that, ‘though Indians are believed to be fatalist,

religious and spiritualistic’, none of their studies ‘could capture those orientations despite

the presence of items on the questionnaire’.

Sinha and Pandey (2007), on the basis of the findings of two empirical studies that

covered 47 social scientists and 176 managers, identified four mindsets namely

materialistic, dependence prone, holistic and collectivistic. They also uncovered the

conditions that evoked different mindsets. The findings indicated that Indians tend to

demonstrate materialistic mindset in international organisations, whereas they tend to

demonstrate dependence prone or collectivistic mindset in family-owned, bureaucratic

and or traditional organisations, depending on whether they value easy going life or

stable relationship, respectively. They tend to be holistic by integrating work excellence

and people orientation in organisations that attach saliency to both performance and

people. Materialistic mindset is associated with manipulative behaviour. Holistic mindset,

which is associated with proactive stance, is manifested in innovative and extraordinary

performance under inspiring leadership.

Finally, interestingly some studies have even reported that Indian managers hold

beliefs and values similar to their Western counterparts (e.g. Kumar, 1996; Sinha, 1990a;

Srinivas, 1994).

3.2 Perceived inconsistency in the behavioural patterns of the Indians

At the core of perceived ‘contradictions’ in the manifested behavioural patterns of the

Indians, lies the fact that Indian behaviour is determined more by the situation or the

context rather than by the personality. Research findings have indicated that Indians tend

to behave in a complex manner by dynamically shifting from primary mode to secondary

mode and vice versa with ease in different contexts/situations. Hence, Indians are

perceived to be high on context sensitivity and balancing disposition. Consequent to dual

socialisation, they tend to develop ‘radar like sensitivity’ to adapt their behaviour to

different situations (Roland, 1988; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997).

Scholars such as Marriott (1976), Kedia and Bhagat (1988), Ramanujan (1989), Sinha

and Sinha (1995), and Sinha and Kanungo (1997) have conducted a series of studies to

understand how people from different locations in India tend to behave differently.

It has been consistently discovered that same individual tends to behave differently

with different persons in same situations or behave differently towards the same person

on different occasions. Also, she/he may behave contrary to her/his professed values and

intentions or hold mutually exclusive values and behavioural intentions.

Sinha et al. (2002, p.318) mentioned that

“Indians are believed to be collectivists in some situations, mix collectivism

and individualism in other situations, but rarely manifest a pattern purely

individualistic with individualist intention even in the most affluent places or in

the face of the most compelling personal needs and interests.”

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Because Indians are context-oriented (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997), the changing socio-

economic scenario of the country is probably largely responsible for this shift towards

individualist influence without pushing people to the extreme.

In an earlier study, Sinha et al. (2001b) found that family as a place and family

members as an in-group were reported to induce Indians to behave in a collectivist way to

serve collectivist goals. Compelling personal needs and goals, juxtaposed on the interests

of family and friends, were predicted to cause a shift towards individualist behaviour and

intention, resulting in various combinations of collectivist and individualist behaviours

and intentions (C&I, IC and CI). Purely individualist behaviour and intention was

believed to occur rarely.

For instance, Singh and Das (1977a,b) found out that Indian managers profess to

value freedom, autonomy, etc. but behave in an autocratic way. Sinha et al. (2003)

conducted a comparative study on perceived beliefs and behaviour of Indians across

seven locations in India to find that across all locations, people’s beliefs and practices are

perceived to be ‘cynical’ and ‘hypocritical’ in nature.

‘Context sensitivity’, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) mention is a ‘thinking

principle or a mindset that is cognitive in nature and it determines the adaptive nature of

an idea, behaviour and context’.

It is a process of balancing one’s behavioural responses in such a manner that one

avoids extreme responses in terms of behaviour and action by combining seemingly

contradictory behaviour in a complex way that would address both their short-term and

long-term goals in a most effective manner. Indians generally perceive a situation and

then respond to it as one episode in an ongoing flow of interactive relationships between

situations and responses (Sinha and Sinha, 1995).

‘Context sensitivity and balancing’, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) argued, ‘are

inter-related, because the persons who are sensitive to their contexts are also aware of

their diverse demands and, therefore, have to balance them by adapting their behaviour to

cope with the environment’.

Indians tend to balance their responses by avoiding extremes in action and thought or

by incorporating seemingly opposite ideas in a complex way (Roland, 1988; Sinha and

Kanungo, 1997). They also tend to avoid confrontation and prefer a middle path, which is

a balancing strategy for resolving conflicts (Sinha, 2008, p.178). Sinha (2005a) mentions

that confluence of two-traditional Indian and Western cultures created a composite Indian

culture that contributed to the coexistence of inconsistent and contradictory values,

beliefs and action orientation in the minds of Indians, which they can evoke selectively

depending on the nature of a context and their interests and goals.

Verma (2011) has identified the following four cultural characteristics of an Indian

mindset

1 adaptability and ability to learn

2 context sensitivity

3 relationship orientation

4 balancing disposition.

The balancing disposition leads Indians to use avoidance, accommodation and

compromise as the most preferred modes of conflict resolution rather than other modes

such as competing and collaborating (refer to Lather et al., 2011 for details).

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

4 Understanding context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour: findings of

some select studies

Findings of a number of studies have indicated that, whereas the cultures of various

countries differ on context sensitivity, many Eastern countries including India are high on

this dimension (Gudykunst et al., 1985; Shweder and Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1994).

Trompenaars (1993) reported that North Americans and most North Europeans behave in

a rule-governed manner, whereas people from Eastern countries such as South Korea,

India and China behave in a context-sensitive manner. Similarly, Hall (1976) reported

that Western people apply abstract principles and generalised norms to their behaviour

because they presume that their social and physical environment is stable and governed

by universal laws and principles.

As Berry (1994, p.78) has pointed out “…human populations are considered to be

adapted (both culturally and biologically) to their ecological contexts, and individual

psychological characteristics are considered to be developed as a function of these

ecological …variables.”

Ramanujan (1989) in his thought provoking essay Is There an Indian way of

Thinking? mentions the following to capture what many Indian intellectuals agreed on

when asked to describe the ‘Indian character’: “Indians do not mean what they say, and

say different things at different times.” It essentially points towards Indian trait of

‘hypocrisy’. He further asserts that the observed behavioural inconsistencies are

essentially to do with context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour. Different societal

cultures prefer either context-sensitive or context-free rules in their thought processes.

Indians tend to operate on the basis of context sensitivity rather than context freedom.

Extreme views are generally discouraged in any context. Consequently, behaviour may

appear inconsistent across situations.

Individual members in the organisation tend to ‘behave differently with different

persons in the same situation or behave differently towards the same person on different

occasions’ (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.94).

Kakar and Kakar (2007) also argue that what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ depends on the

situation for an Indian. A behaviour/action which is right in one situation may be wrong

in another situation. The same person needs to change her/his behaviour depending on the

situation. This is what is called context-sensitive behaviour, which is ‘not just a feature of

traditional moral law but extends to many areas of contemporary Indian life and thought’

(Kakar and Kakar, 2007, p.189).

Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.96) also mentioned that context sensitivity amongst

Indians manifests itself in relation to three components of the environment, which are

desh (place), kal (time) and patra (person). A person’s values, beliefs and actions are

judged on the basis of the nature of three components. Some behaviour that is judged

appropriate for a given place, time and person(s) may not be appropriate for other times,

places and persons.”

Indians are known to be context-sensitive people as they look upon norms as

accommodative rules for meeting the demands of the situation (Verma, 2011). They are

known to use ‘flexibility in ethics’ as ‘rightness or wrongness appears to be determined

by the context in which behaviour takes place’ (Sinha and Tripathi, 1994, p.29).

Roland (1984, p.114) mentioned that correct behaviour is expected in specific

contexts of variety of roles and relationships rather than any unchanging norms for all

situations. By showing differential sensitivity to their context, Indian can bring forth new

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

pattern of thoughts, feelings and actions for dealing favourably with the structural aspects

of the context, i.e. place, person and time (Sinha, in press, pp.25–30). He further notes

that the structural dimension of the context contains varying degrees of enabling and

debilitating potentials. This helps Indians survive and deal with both the conditions. In

crisis, they might deviate from the code of conduct or put in extraordinary effort.

However, in an enabling situation, they can excel and shine.

To sum up, context-sensitive nature makes Indians keep a close watch on time,

person and place, and hence, can shift their position or approach. This cultural

characteristic helps them deal with any circumstance with ease.

Sinha et al. (2002, pp.317–318) mentioned that

“Indians are believed to combine collectivist and individualist behaviour

and intentions in a complex way depending on the structure and the meaning

of the situation. They are primarily collectivists while dealing with family

members…. In most other situations, they tend to combine collectivist and

individualist behaviour and intentions in different ways.”

They empirically studied the normative behavioural pattern of Indians in 20 situations.

The five behavioural responses they had identified are:

1 collectivist behaviour with collectivist intention (CC)

2 individualist behaviour with individualist intention (II)

3 collectivist behaviour with individualist intention to behave subsequently in an

individualist way (CI)

4 individualist behaviour with collectivist intention to behave subsequently in a

collectivist way (IC)

5 a mix of collectivist and individualist intention and behaviour (C&I).

They found that out of 20 situations, Indians prefer CC mode in seven situations, II in one

situation only, IC in one situation only, C&I in six situations and CI mode in five

situations.

Sinha et al. (2002, p.314) summarise their finding as follows:

“Whereas seven modal responses were reported to be purely collectivist (CC),

only one was purely individualist (II). Collectivist behaviour intended to realize

an individualist goal (CI) was the modal response predicted in five situations

whereas individualist behaviour intended to serve collectivist interest (IC) was

predicted only in one situation.”

On the whole, there were seven CC (collectivist behaviour with collectivist intention), six

C&I (a mix of both collectivist and individualist behaviour and intention) and five CI

(collectivist behaviour with individualist intention to behave subsequently in an

individualist way) modal responses. In one situation, the percentage of respondents

predicting C&I was quite close to the modal response CC. IC (individualist behaviour

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

with collectivist intention to behave subsequently in a collectivist way) and II

(individualist behaviour with individualist intention) were the modal responses predicted

in one situation each.

Affluence and infrastructural adequacy tend to induce Indians to shift towards

combining individualistic and collectivist orientations, employing to a lesser extent

collectivist behaviour to serve individualist interests and opting in a few situations for

individualistic responses intended to serve individualistic purposes. This was borne out of

the mean scores in different locations within India.

…Samastipur had the highest and New Delhi and Ahmedabad had the lowest

mean scores on the prediction of purely collectivist behaviour (CC), whereas

the reverse was true for purely individualist behaviour (II), and somewhat

similar for C&I and CI response combinations. New Delhi stood first,

Ahmedabad second, and Samastipur fourth on C&I. Ahmedabad had the

highest, New Delhi the second highest, and Samastipur the lowest mean scores

on the prediction of CI. Tirupati and Bhubaneswar had neither the highest nor

lowest mean scores on CC, CI, and II. Only on C&I did Tirupati have the

lowest mean score (Sinha et al., 2002, p.317).

People who grow up in affluent and urban places may less likely to depend on others for

day-to-day needs and hence more likely to cultivate individualism in their intentions and

behaviour (Sinha et al., 2001a).

While dealing with family members and friends, Indians tend to be more collectivist

than individualist. Education had a significant effect and other background variables had

intermediate effects on the choice of either purely collectivist or a mix of collectivist and

individualist behaviour and intentions. People with little education and living in less

developed and urbanised locations (places) tend to behave in a collectivist manner (Daab,

1991; Mishra, 1994; Triandis, 1995).

Compelling and urgent personal needs and goals in conflict with the interests of

family or friends lead to a mix of individualist and collectivist behaviour and intentions.

In a recent study, Sinha et al. (2010) explored Indian mindset by investigating the

joint effects of Indians’ discrepant mindset, context sensitivity and quality of

environment on their modes of behaviour. Respondents also predicted how a person is

likely to change her/his behaviour when the conditions in which she/he works change

from disabling to enabling. The findings of the study indicated that the two most

dominant modes of behaviour, self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goal

coexisted, but were differently triggered. Context sensitivity facilitated both modes of

behaviour. Adequate infrastructure, friendly and helpful people in the neighbourhood

ensured only achieving high positive goal behaviour. On the contrary, duplicity in

professing desirable but acting under realistic compulsions, poor quality of environment

and low levels of development were conducive to self-serving calculative behaviour.

4.1 Explaining context sensitivity – Why individual’s behaviour is sensitive to a

situation?

Why do the Indians tend to demonstrate seemingly ‘inconsistent’ pattern of behaviour,

which is believed to be context-driven? Let us mention some of the plausible reasons.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

4.1.1 Role-bounded collectivist nature of Indian society

Indian society has been a rigid role-bounded society (Garg and Parikh, 1995). Indians’

desire to be embedded in their preferred in-groups also encourages them to take their role

in various collectives as sacrosanct and hence accept without questioning. Indian society

has been described as ‘the society of role absolutism’ (Garg and Parikh, 1995, p.92),

which means surrendering the individual and self to the expectations of the collectives.

Individualistic behaviour like explicitly mentioning one’s intent which runs counter to

group norms is discouraged. Ideally, one’s behaviour and action should be guided by his

role as prescribed by different collectives.

Traditional Indian agrarian society discouraged moving away into the peer culture,

which requires voluntary definition of one’s belonging. The most significant aspects of

Indian agrarian society were the rigidly defined and bounded systems of exclusion and

inclusion defining an individual’s belonging. The caste system facilitated and reinforced

the process. It fostered closeness, dependency, cohesiveness and role rigidity. It also

nurtured parochialism with the socio-psychological community (made up of blood

relations and extended kinship) and encouraged distance from socio-temporal community

(made up of population of a village or a cluster of contiguously located villages).

Kakar and Kakar (2007) substantiate the above thesis while they mention that there is

no clear difference between self and non-self amongst the Indians, which tends to

contribute to behavioural inconsistency. It has always been regarded as puzzling. As

Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.188) mention:

How can a reputed astronomer, working at a well known institute of

fundamental sciences, also be a practicing astrologer? How can the Western

educated executive of a MNC consult horoscopes and holy men for family

decisions? How does Oxford educated cabinet minister postpone an important

meeting because the hour is astrologically inauspicious for a meeting?

Shweder and Bourne (1984), who have compared descriptive phrases used by Oriyas

from eastern Indian and mid-Westerners from the USA, have shown that the two describe

persons differently. Americans characterise a person with abstract, generic word such as

‘good’, ‘nice’, while Oriyas tend to use more concrete, contextual descriptions such as

‘he helps me’, ‘brings sweet’, etc. Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.191) substantiate this

finding by adding that ‘this tendency to supply context when providing a description

characterises the description of Indians regardless of social class, education or level of

literacy’.

Roland (1988) observed that the traditional Indian society provides few social options

and autonomy to Indian adolescents, which hinders the individuation process of the

Indians. Compared to the US society, relatively weak individuation process in Indian

society makes Indians closer and submissive to familial pressures.

Indians, as claimed by Kedia and Bhagat (1988), tend to have ‘associative thinking’

rather than ‘abstract thinking’. Indians, using associative thinking frame, tend to utilise

associations among events that may not have much logical basis to justify their beliefs

and actions. In contrast, the Westerners, using abstract thinking frame, tend to justify

beliefs and behaviours based on logical cause and effect or principle guided thinking.

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

4.1.2 Fuzzy notion of ‘universalism’ in Indian context

The Indian way of thinking does not seem to have developed the concept of universality.

Since the society is traditional and conservative in nature, the approach towards the entire

society does not seem to be secular. Indians are yet to develop the notion of ‘data’ or

‘objective facts’. According to Kissinger,6 India is not influenced by Newtonian ideas.

Zimmer, an acclaimed indologist, echoes Kissinger to mention that Indians can imagine a

time in history without man. West cannot do that as it is egoistic in nature.

While the west has universality, in India there are subjective positions. The

understanding of reality in India is always context sensitive and not context-free. In India,

even the perception of truth is not a universal concept.

Carl Jung (as quoted by Sinha and Tripathi, 1994, p.125) mentions:

It is true that the logical processes of India are funny and it is bewildering to

see how fragments of Western science live peacefully side by side with, what

we short-sightedly, would call superstition. Indians do not mind seemingly

intolerable contradictions.

In the West ‘man shall not kill’ is a universal statement, but in India punishments are

meted out owing to a person’s social status. Even in the Manusmriti, we find that moral

codes need not be adhered to under all circumstances.

In India, all additions are in fact a subtraction from any universal law. Stories get

their context with reference to the frame in which they have been placed. Indian texts are

historically dateless, but their contexts, uses and efficacies are explicit.

Even when we look at Indian epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata, we find that

there are several episodes – each story is encased in a meta-story. And within the text,

one story is the context for another within it – the outer-frame story as well as the inner

sub-story provides relevant contexts for the other’s existence. Aristotle’s theory of unity

of time, place and action cannot be applied to these Indian narratives.

All Western societies generally have context-sensitive behaviour and rules but the

dominant idea is always context-free. In contrast, as Indian society is so heavily context

sensitive, all Indians aspire to be free of context as a counterpoint but in a state of

transcendence – this gives rise to the concept of ‘rasa’ in aesthetics, ‘moksha’ in the aims

of life and ‘sanyasa’ in the end of life-stages.7

4.1.3 Unique perception about a ‘situation’

Indians’ perception of situations tends to be episodic. It means that the Indians perceive a

situation as an episode in an ongoing chain of interactive events of situations and

responses over a period of time (Singh and Sinha, 1992). They respond to a situation in

terms of their long-term interests. Secondly, Indians tend to separate precepts from

practices. Finally, though disparity between intention and behaviour are universal, the

degree to which the Indians tolerate this disparity is strikingly phenomenal. Indians seem

to have learnt to live with a dissonance between a particular behaviour and intention

behind it (Bharati, 1985).

Sinha and Tripathi (1994, p.128) quote Kapp observing “…the paradoxical

coexistence in one culture system (i.e. India) of contradictory value orientation and actual

behavioural pattern.” They conducted a study in which majority of respondents endorsed

alternatives that were not consistent. For example, the respondents felt that they should

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

choose their career according to their own inclination and also go by the advice of parents

or friends; should seek their own happiness and also care for others’ happiness at the cost

of their own; should aspire to be successful and also compromise their success to be

helpful to others; should be independent and also be dependent; and should solve

problem on their own while looking for guidance and support from others. It seems that

respondents were attempting to strike a balance between opposing ways of dealing with

various day-to-day issues.

Braasch (1999) provided an interesting distinction between core (values, beliefs and

assumptions) and surface (styles, fads, foods, symbols, etc.) culture in India. Whereas the

core part of Indian culture is characterised as particularly fixed, the surface part is quite

flexible. Whether an Indian chooses to exhibit a behaviour based on core or surface, part

of the culture depends on the context of the situation, which in turn may be influenced by

place (desh), time (kal) and person (patra). It can be suggested that Indians have

the ability to keep the fixed core of their behaviour to the private sphere and use the

more flexible surface part at the workplace. This ‘flexible’ nature of behaviour at

workplace tends to contribute to the inconsistencies in the managerial and work

behaviour of the Indians. This was further substantiated by Sinha’s (2004) study of five

multinationals operating in India. He found that Indians being context-oriented tended to

suppress their cultural preferences and habits to mobilise themselves to meet the

expectations of expatriate superiors.

4.1.4 Ethical relativism at the core of Indian society

Dharma plays the most pivotal role in shaping the Indian ethical sensibility (Kakar and

Kakar, 2007, p.186). Ethical relativism is at the core of this sensibility, which shapes the

traditional Hindu worldview. This tends to shape the Indian way of thinking to a great

extent. ‘Right action depends on the culture of the country (desa), the historical era in

which he lives (kala), on the efforts required of him at his particular stage of life

(ashrama) and lastly on the innate character (guna)’ (Kakar and Kakar, 2007, p.186).

For instance, as Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.97) have pointed out ‘Dharma (i.e.

religion)’, e.g. also means ‘that which holds’ people in face of the fluid and changing

environment around them. But there are many kinds of dharma. One is spontaneous

expression of biologically determined temperament (swa-dharma), which is different

from the social code of conduct (jati-dharma), which may yet be different from the

superstructure of a universally highly desirable set of obligations to self and others

(sanatana dharma). But, then there is a fourth type: apad dharma, which is the required

conduct during the emergency. Any one of the four can be resorted to for deciding on or

justifying behaviours unspecific circumstances. And yet there is an order among them.

The universally desirable set of do’s and do not’s certainly have a higher position than

the emergency measures, which can be taken only in exceptional conditions.

In Hindu religious tradition, there are six major and several minor systems of

philosophical thoughts acknowledged to be valid from their own perspectives (Paranjape,

1984). They create a worldview, in which diverse thoughts are conceptualised to

coexist and can be justified depending on the context or situation (Sinha and Kanungo,

1997, p.97).

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

Kakar and Kakar (2007, p.187) also agreed with Sinha and Kanungo to mention that

An individual can never know the configuration of all these factors in an

absolute sense, nor even significantly influence them. Nor is there a book, or its

authoritative interpreters like Church, which can help by removing doubts on

how an individual must act in each conceivable situation. ‘Right’ or ‘wrong’,

then, are relative; depending on its specific context, every action can be right –

or wrong.

4.1.5 A case of dual socialisation and hybrid self

Indian society, historically and culturally, has been internally tempered by external

influences, contributing to the coexistence of two worldviews, and hence, two ways of

life! India has been a target of external influences. A large part of India was under British

rule during the period of colonisation. The modernisation process in India has been

heavily moulded by British influence.

An influx of influences coming from outside, instead of being integrated into a

‘melting pot’, were ‘engulfed’ by Indian culture (Schulberg, 1968) – retaining their

uniqueness and yet forming a part of the host culture. The process has resulted in the

development of an ‘encompassing system’ (Dumont, 1970), where seemingly

inconsistent and contradictory beliefs and actions are accommodated, balanced,

integrated and allowed to coexist (Marriott, 1976). These beliefs and actions are activated

differently in the different contexts.

Tripathi (1990) argues that both social and work values in India are a set of mixed

values of both Western and non-Western influences. Tripathi (1988) has used the concept

of variable boundary to explain Indian self. Depending on the situation and

characteristics of the person, the boundaries of ‘self’ can get extended so as to reduce the

saliency of in-group. Under such situations, an individual acts more on the basis of

individualistic orientation. In another situation, the same individual may display a

collectivistic orientation, wherein the self-boundaries may get completely submerged in

the in-group boundaries.

Sinha (2002) elaborated how dual socialisation impacts the work organisations in

India. Indian work organisations are subjected to both traditional Indian and Western

cultural influences. Because of its historicity and oral tradition, the former leads to

primary while the latter to secondary modes of expressing values. The choice of either of

the modes or their combinations depends on a context. Many of the seemingly

contradictory and inconsistent organisational behaviour and managerial practices can be

meaningfully explained by employing this cultural framework of two modes of

expressing values and three components of a context.

Fusilier and Durlabhji (2001) claim that Indians form an understanding of Indian

culture through their upbringing, but when they get educated under Western ethos, then

an element of contradiction and complexity creeps into the behavioural pattern of the

Indians.

A person socialised in an Indian family tends to inculcate the values and beliefs that

1 authority of the eldest member of the family over other family members is

legitimate, unquestionable and unchallenged

2 the relationship amongst family members is hierarchical in nature (elder–younger)

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

3 each of the family members is duty bound to act according to the prescribed family

role, which is sanctioned by the society

4 family members are encouraged to withhold individual feelings.

All relationships in the family are one-dimensional and are characteristically superior-

subordinate. There is no concept of equality in the traditional family system. The

superior-subordinate dimension is so ingrained in the society of role identities that

equality of selves can rarely be achieved.

Such an attitude fosters the tendency to withhold feelings.

The family serves as a value generating and conserving unit (Gustavsson, 1997, p.19)

in Indian context, which tends to instil values like having close personalised relationship

with others, not being self-centred and caring for the whole family. The family

environment creates a sense of social commitment and dependence. Each of the family

members is socialised to have a cordial inter-personal relationship with others by being

concerned about others’ feelings.

The parent–child relationship in the family system in a collectivist culture like India

tends to be marked with ‘subordination’ and ‘emotional dependence’. Emotional

intimacy, dependency and symbiotic reciprocity are imbibed into the members through

in-family socialisation process. Ramanujan (1989) mentions that Indians are constantly

gauging and testing the level of ‘intimacy’ they may have with anyone. Indians tend to

expect ‘emotional connectedness’ from every relationship in most of the situations.

The nature of Indian family is primarily either ‘interdependent’ or ‘emotionally

dependent’ (Kagitcibasi’s categorisation of family, 1994). Even families in urban

locations are not ‘independent’ in nature unlike in Western societies. In India financial or

economic dependence decrease with socio-economic development but emotional

dependence still remains quite strong.

Scholars such as Dumont (1970), Marriott and Inden (1974) and Ramanujan (1989,

1990) describe the self in the Asian context as socio-centric, interdependent and context-

dependent, ostensibly placing community and family interest at the centre of their

universe rather than the individual (Erikson, 1979; Kakar, 1981). In this context, identity

is seen as an outcome of adjustment within and identification with multiple social groups

such as the family, caste group, clan or class (Ramanujan, 1989).

On the basis of psychotherapeutic treatment of 12 English speaking, middle-upper

class Indian patients from five religious communities, Roland (1988) reported that to an

Indian psyche relationship is usually far more important than issues. He has further stated

that the desire for emotionally close, well-defined hierarchical familial relationship is a

manifestation of their traditional collectivistic familial self.

The modal Hindu personality is characterised by obedience and conformity rather

than personal initiative (Asthana, 1956; Carstairs, 1957). Sinha (1988) has found

mildness, passivity, dependency and non-materialistic orientation amongst others to be

the ‘basic Indian values’, which Narain (1957) has also found to be the part of ‘Indian

psyche’. Scholars have attributed this to the hierarchical structure of Indian society

(Dumont, 1970; Kakar, 1971a,b).

One the whole, the in-family socialisation of Indians tends to imbibe the saliency and

need for ‘intimate personalised relationship’, suppress one’s own feelings, to demonstrate

expected behaviour as defined by the role. These are at the core of ‘familial Hindu

worldview’. However, if a person is exposed to urban/modern lifestyles, which are

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

guided by Western ethos, she/he tends to develop a tendency to give a bit more saliency

to individual interests than what she/he would have normally attached.

While contrasting between the American ‘individualised self’ and Indian ‘familial

self’, Roland (1987) mentions that the ego boundaries of Indian self-encompass others of

the extended family, a self less separate and differentiated intraphysically than the self of

most Americans. The Indian self develops to be ‘far more deeply identified with family

and jati (community) than a contemporary American’.

The second stage of socialisation takes place in educational institutions. If a person is

exposed to an educational system based on Western ethos, she/he is encouraged to

develop ‘independence’, ‘autonomy’, and be guided by personal interests. Such an

exposure leads to the development of ‘autonomous’/‘independent’ self concept, which is

at the core of Anglo-Saxon worldview. The exposure to Western value system and ethos

contribute to the development of behavioural pattern that can be viewed as autonomous,

egocentric, context-independent and reflexive (Johnson, 1985).

On the other hand, if a person is exposed to an educational system based on

indigenous ethos, she/he tends to give higher saliency to relationship, become collectivist

in thinking and worldview.

Kagitcibasi (1996a,b) proposes that such individuals, who are exposed to two kinds of

worldviews at different phases of life through different socialising institutions, tend to

have the elements of both relational (interdependent) and autonomous (independent)

selves. The coexistence of these selves, within individuals, implies the individuals can

demonstrate both individualist and collectivist tendencies depending on the situation

(Kagitcibasi, 1996a,b).

Many Indians tend to fall under the above-mentioned group, who are socialised into

two worldviews: traditional familial ‘Hindu’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’. This makes Indian

societal culture a composite culture marked by the interplay of both traditional,

indigenous Hindu worldview and the Anglo-Saxon (Western) worldview.

Such a ‘hybrid worldview’ allows Indians to express two seemingly opposite modes

of behaviour depending on the context. The demonstration of contradictory behavioural

patterns by the Indians in different situations led Marriott (1990) to view them as

‘dividuals’ rather than ‘individuals’. The person in Indian context is not an indivisible

entity but as the sum of his or her shifting relationships. Marriott’s (1990) concept of

‘dividuals’ complements Dumontian view that holism characterises non-Western

societies where, ‘the stress is placed on the society as a whole, a collective man’, whereas

the case of individualism ‘ontologically, the society no longer exists’ (Dumont,

1970, p.8).

Gupta and Panda’s (2003) study indicated the existence of individualistic as well as

collectivistic tendencies amongst the educated professionals, which are the manifestations

of ‘individualised familial self’ – a blend of individualist and collectivist selves.

Sinha and Kanungo (1997, p.99), while summarising their argument for Indians

demonstrating context-sensitive behaviour, mentioned that

“the traditional system of Hinduism, castes, and agricultural mode of

production have interacted with the events of invasions, alien rules, and the

exposure to the West to create a context sensitivity which takes into

consideration the person-related (patra) and temporal (kal) aspects and the

ecology (desh) of the environment while responding to a given situation.”

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Sinha (2002) observed that Indians oscillate in a triangular psychological space where

their collectivist familial and individualistic-private selves tend to balance each other or

just coexist without creating any cognitive dissonance. Inconsistency and contextual

nature of the behaviour of Indians, Kumar (2004) argues, to be the manifestations of the

interplay of brahmanical idealism and anarchical individualism.

Table 1 delineates the characteristics of dichotomous nature of Indian psyche in terms

of place of socialisation, socialising institutions, internalised values, behaviour and

attitudes, focus of identity, nature of sub-identity and finally displayed cultural values.

Table 1 Dichotomous nature of Indian psyche: dual socialisation

spects Traditional familial Hindu worldview

ndustrial Anglo-Saxon worldview

Place of socialisation Family in a traditional society (primary

socialisation)

Educational institutions,

organisations inspired or

influenced by Western industrial

ethos (secondary socialisation)

Institutions Traditional jajmani system based on task

interdependence; allocation of tasks based

on the caste system reinforcing

‘hierarchical orientation’ and

‘inter-dependence’

Professional organisations and

institutions based on Anglo-Saxon

ethos of equality, equity and

positional authority (and hence,

bureaucracy)

Internalised values,

attitudes and behaviours

Saliency of social role, rigid role hierarchy,

familial affiliative orientation, interpersonal

interdependence (public/community/

societal level)

Cosmic collectivism, ‘cosmic’ hierarchy,

individual pursuit for self-realisation and

‘salvation’; law of karma, spirituality

(individual psychological level), religious

rituals

Logical thought, rationality,

aspiration (leading to

individualism, achievement

orientation); enlightenment,

scientific rationalism

Focus of identity Emotive and spiritual maps (emotional

affinity, interdependence and religio-

spiritual orientation)

Rational cognitive map

ature of sub-identity Traditional with the centrality of ‘family’,

‘socially prescribed roles’ with a tinge of

religious and spiritualistic orientation

Westernised with the centrality of

scientific rationalism and progress

Displayed cultural values Hierarchy orientation, collectivistic

orientation with a streak of individualism,

parochialism (in-group–outgroup

orientation), saliency of family, role

rigidity and role boundedness of Indian

society, authority is unquestionable, hence,

complying with the authority without

expressing individual feelings is the desired

cultural norm, religious orientation

(ritualistic society) with a streak of

‘dormant’ or ‘inactive’ spiritualism

Egalitarianism based on social

ustice; individualistic orientation

with the explicit expression of

one’s rational thought,

professionalism, hierarchy based

on ‘positional and professional’

authority’

Displayed work values Collectivist/group orientation, saliency to

personalised relationship, ascribed

hierarchy. Dependence on others,

‘chalta hai’ (‘everything goes’) attitude,

tends to be emotional, subjective

Individualist, guided by personal

goals and self-interests,

transactional in approach, saliency

to professional/contractual

relationship vis-à-vis personalised

relationship, achievement-oriented,

competitive and rational, objective

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

5 The multi-minded Indian

A person is the product of the socialisation process. Consequent to dual socialisation in

two institutions (family and educational system), Indians tend to develop three distinct

worldviews with distinct self concept and identity. This is what we call ‘multi-minded

Indian’.

5.1 Three Indians: products of dual socialisation

Depending on how and where one has been brought up (traditional joint family vs.

urbanised nuclear family) and how and where she/he has been educated, extent and kind

of exposure to urban/modern context help to develop a particular ‘worldview’.

Indians have been socialised to two conflicting as well as contradictory worldviews:

1 traditional agrarian familial Hindu worldview

2 industrial Western Anglo-Saxon worldview,

which encourage two distinct life styles and modes of relationship with others.

They seem to get caught between an agrarian, traditional ethos and the industrial,

Western ethos and seem to become victims of ‘double bind’ (Garg and Parikh, 1995,

p.14), which implies a process where contradictory messages converge on the individual

from either of the two distinct sources. The traditional familial ethos is rooted in familial

and relational notion, whereas Western industrial ethos is rooted in logical and rational

notion. It provides a dichotomous hybrid self to the Indians with two seemingly

contradictory cognitive maps coexisting:

1 familial religious affective

2 logico-rational.

Most of the Indians in the third category – hybrid Indians – tend to behave in accordance

with Western logical and rational forms in formal work context though remain rooted in

the emotional and relational agrarian ethos in informal context.

The traditional focus of identity draws them towards the emotive map of Indian

culture which emphasises familial affiliative processes and inter-personal

interdependence. The industrial focus of identity impels them to seek an individualistic,

achievement centred stance. The emotive map requires the individual to do his duty as

prescribed by the society, considered socially desirable, and according to the demand of

the older generation. The other is the cognitive map of logical thought and rationality

which creates a worldview quite in tune with the modern context but out of harmony with

the emotive map. This forces the individual to either conform or rebel or just walk away.

The Indian identity thus often remains elusive.

It can be useful to cluster Indians into three ideal types based on their socialisation in

early childhood in family and later in the educational institutions. The Indians who are

socialised in rural/non-urban and non-cosmopolitan and are educated in a system that is

based on indigenous traditional ethos tend to develop a strong and deeply in-grained

‘relational’ worldview. They tend to value personalised relationship, highly collectivistic

in orientation and highly conservative and traditional in mindset and thinking. We have

labelled these Indians as ‘traditional collectivist Indian’, with a predominantly relational

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

self, with a collectivist worldview that attaches primacy to relationship. Such a self is

similar to Roland’s conceptualisation of ‘familial self’.

Indians in other category, who are socialised in urban/cosmopolitan/metro location

and are educated in a system that is based on Western ethos and value orientation, tend to

develop a strong ‘Anglo-Saxon (individualistic) worldview’. They tend to give

importance to independence, autonomy and individualism. They tend to be objective,

rational and may not value ‘personalised relationship’. We have labelled these Indians as

‘Westernised individualist Indian’, possessing an autonomous self that attaches primacy

to individual autonomy and independence.

Finally, Indians in the third category, who are exposed to two worldviews and value

orientations in two stages of socialisation, tend to develop hybrid self, demonstrating both

‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ behavioural patterns. We have labelled these Indians as

‘hybrid Indian’. Indians in this group possess a hybrid self, which is a blend of relational

and autonomous selves with hybrid worldview (Table 2).

Table 2 Three ideal types of Indians

lace of in-family

(primary) socialisation

ure of secondary

socialisation

ature of self

abe

Urban/metro/cosmopolitan

locations

Education system with Western

ethos and value orientation

Autonomous

self

Westernised

individualist Indian

Rural/non-urban locations Education system with Western

ethos and value orientation

Hybrid self Hybrid Indian

Urban/metro/cosmopolitan

locations

Education system with

indigenous traditional ethos

Hybrid self Hybrid Indian

Rural/non-urban locations Education system with

indigenous traditional ethos

Familial self Traditional

collectivist Indian

6 Three Indians in three work contexts

6.1 Elaborating the concepts of ‘person’ and ‘situation’

Sinha and Kanungo’s (1997) conceptualisation of context includes

1 the place (where the person is interacting-formal setting like organisation or in an

informal setting like home; place where she/he feels secure/insecure)

2 the person (whether the person with whom one is interacting belongs to one’s in-

group and one’s position in group hierarchy, vis-à-vis with who she/he is interacting-

senior, peer or junior)

3 the time (short-term vs. long-term perspective).

In this paper, we have only considered the ‘place’ for the following reasons:

1 Firstly, the space limit of an academic paper would not allow us to cover all three

aspects.

2 Secondly, our attempt is to develop a generic taxonomy that would help us to

understand how three ideal types of Indians (consequence of early socialisations)

would ‘generally’ behave in different places. We believe that there would be a minor

variation when we include person and time.

econstructing context-

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

The work situations could be segregated into work and non-work situations. We have

further limited the scope of this paper to work contexts in India, which could be three,

namely

1 foreign MNO

2 government-owned organisation

3 family-owned organisation.

Scholars such as Virmani and Guptan (1991) and Virmani (2000) have identified four

types of business organisations in India, namely

1 multinational

2 public sector

3 government

4 family-owned.

We have merged both ‘public sector’ and ‘government’ into one category ‘government-

owned’. Secondly, we make a distinction between Indian multinational and non-Indian

multinational. Our focus in this paper is limited to foreign (non-Indian) MNOs (primarily

Western MNOs).

The template would be given as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 The operational template

Non-Indian MNO (WS1) Government-owned

organisation (WS2)

Family-owned

organisation (WS3)

Westernised individualist

Indian (I1)

B1 B

2 B

Hybrid Indian (I2) B4 B

5 B

Traditional collectivist

Indian (I3)

B7 B

8 B

An instance of behaviour (Bn) is the consequence of the interaction of the person (It) and

the work situation (WSs). The behaviour as demonstrated by a person depends on the

person’s worldview and the context. This can be formally represented in the following

manner:

(

)

,WS

nts

nt s

BfI

=×

We will be deconstructing the context-sensitive behaviour of Indians in Section 5.2.

6.2 Five generic behavioural patterns and behavioural continuum

What would be the possible range of behavioural pattern? A traditional Indian tends to

exhibit collectivist behavioural pattern that would attach saliency to relationship. For a

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

traditional collectivist Indian, relationship is the key, which needs to be nurtured and

sustained. This tendency gets manifested in work behaviour, which makes work

behaviour highly personalised. Depending on the degree of saliency attached to

relationship, it would be gross personalised work behaviour (GPWB) or subtle

personalised work behaviour (SPWB).

‘GPWB’ and ‘SPWB’ tend to differ in terms of the saliency attached to ‘personalised

relationship’. In the former work behaviour, the nature and intensity of inter-personal

relationship (e.g. member of in-group or out-group) primarily dictates one’s work

behaviour. This tendency amongst the employees can be felt and observed by even the

outsiders. However, in the later case, the attempt would be to balance the demands of

‘personalised relationship’ and work. In such a scenario, personalised relationship,

though considered to be salient, rarely solely influences one’s work behaviour, unlike in

the former.

On the other end of the continuum, Westernised individualised Indian tends to

demonstrate individualist behavioural pattern that would attach saliency to personal

goals. Personal goals need to be achieved even at the expense of relationship. This

tendency gets manifested in work behaviour, which makes work behaviour highly

impersonal. Depending on the extent of ‘impersonal’ nature of work behaviour, it would

be gross impersonal work behaviour (GIWB) or subtle impersonal work behaviour

(SIWB).

Similar to above, ‘GIWB’ and ‘SIWB’ tend to differ in terms of the saliency attached

to ‘impersonal’ or ‘non-relational’ aspects of work behaviour. In the case of the former,

the compliance to the systems and processes is considered primary and sacrosanct.

However, in the later case, similar to SPWB, the attempt would be to strike a balance

between the demands of relationship and process.

At the middle of the continuum, a large chunk of Indians who could be viewed as

hybrid Indians, possessing hybrid self, tend to exhibit a mix of both collectivist and

individualist behavioural patterns, exhibiting mixed work behaviour (MWB). Scholars

like Sinha and Verma (1987) have found Indians to be collectivist, whereas many others

have found them to be highly individualistic, especially in achievement situations

(Tripathi, 1988). Thus, both kinds of orientations seem to exist amongst the largest group

of Indians. Their expression depends on the nature of the situation. Sinha et al. (2001b)

have found that Indians are both collectivists and individualists and that they combine the

two orientations in a complex way. The same Indian can be interdependent in one domain

and independent in another.

The core behavioural tendencies under each of five behavioural patterns are described

below:

1 Gross personalised work behaviour (GPWB)

a Relationship is salient in work behaviour.

b Compliance to system and process is minimal.

c Espoused systems and processes are compromised for relationship.

d Demonstrates personal loyalty to others.

e Work relationship is rarely a professional relationship, it is viewed as an

extension of personal relationship.

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

2 Subtle personalised work behaviour (SPWB)

a Personalised relationship is valued.

b Systems and processes are followed to the extent possible.

c An attempt is made to strike a balance between relationship and system

compliance.

d At times, espoused systems and processes are compromised for relationship.

e Work relationship is a blend of personal and professional relationships.

3 Gross impersonal work behaviour (GIWB)

a System and process orientation is high.

b Relationship rarely matters to employees in this group.

c Work relationship is viewed as professional/contractual relationship with limited

person to person interaction.

d Each person is expected to play a role.

e Espoused systems and processes are followed in letter and spirit.

4 Subtle impersonal work behaviour (SIWB)

a Systems and processes are valued.

b Systems and processes are followed to the extent what key relationships allow.

c An attempt is made to strike a balance between system and process compliance

and key/salient relationship.

d At times, relationship is sacrificed for complying with system and process

requirements.

e Work relationship is primarily a professional relationship though with a tinge of

personalised relation.

5 Mixed work behaviour (MWB)

a It is a mixed behavioural pattern that attempts to blend both relationship

orientation and compliance with systems and processes.

b The manifested/demonstrated behaviour is highly situation specific.

c One may behave differently in similar situations in two different contexts. In

one situation, the person may sacrifice relationship and in another similar

situation, the person may comprise on the system and process requirements.

d Tends to demonstrate high level of flexibility/adaptability, though perceived by

others as ‘inconsistent’ and unpredictable.

6.2.1 Similarities with Sinha’s conceptualisation of ‘soft’ and ‘synergetic’ work

cultures

A closer look to the above-mentioned behavioural patterns would reveal its similarity

with Sinha’s conceptualisation ‘soft’ and ‘synergetic’ work cultures (Sinha, 1990a). Both

kinds of work culture would be at both poles of the bipolar behavioural continuum

presented below. The soft work culture, where ‘profit and productivity yield to familial

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

ethic and in-group considerations’ (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.102), seems to foster

‘GPWB pattern’, whereas the synergistic work culture, where “the organizations have

been able to set up the objective of self-reliance, developed strong work-related norms,

unequivocal performance standards and a generous reward system-all supported by

people-oriented management” (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997, p.102), may foster ‘GIWB

pattern’.

The soft work culture is marked with behavioural pattern with the following

characteristics

1 primacy of personalised relationship over organisational needs and requirements

2 desire to be embedded in one’s preferred in-group

3 demonstrating personal loyalty to organisational members who matter rather than

organisational processes and systems

4 primacy of personal and social obligations compared to work obligations.

However, the synergetic work culture is characterised by following behavioural patterns:

1 saliency of work ethics

2 primacy of organisational systems and processes

3 saliency of objectivity and eliminating any scope for subjectivity.

Different Indians can make a shift from one behavioural pattern to another one in a

seamless manner depending on the context/situation.

Let us now look at the dominant work culture in three work contexts in India considered

in this paper, which Western MNOs, government organisations and family-owned

organisations.

6.3 Distinct work cultures in three work contexts

The Western MNOs have been guided by Western value system/processes and make their

formal systems and processes work more effectively. The organisational processes and

systems are considered sacrosanct, and are rarely compromised for subjective

considerations. Professional competence is valued more than personal loyalty.

The government organisations (including public sector entities) are characterised by

politicisation and bureaucratisation. In such an organisation, the way things are

conducted would be perceived as ‘confusing’ and ‘unpredictable’ by outsiders. It

becomes a choice for the organisation members whether to be process centric or person

centric depending on the situation.

In contrast, the family-owned organisations tend to be run and managed in an ad-hoc

manner. Loyalty seems to be given more salience than competence. Secondly,

relationship is given more salience in this kind of set-up. The spirit of organisational

processes and systems may be compromised or bypassed to meet the demands arising out

of a need to nurture and maintain relationships.

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

6.4 Probable patterns of behaviour

Many managers internalise both traditional and Western values (Sinha, 1990b), which

has resulted in ‘a strange dualism in Indian management practices’ (Virmani, 1997, p.30).

Both are seemingly incongruent, yet continuously interacting like ‘drops of oil on water’.

Indian business system and practices, hence, tend to present a very confused picture

(Virmani and Guptan, 1991) to both organisation theorists as well as practitioners. Also,

many of the Western concepts and frameworks tend to succeed only partially in

explaining work behaviour of Indian employees.

Virmani (2005) studied over 40 organisations of various types in India. Not

surprisingly, he found that

There is a distinct hiatus between the professed and actual practices followed in

most Indian organizations. This is due to conflict that arises from having alien

Western system thrust upon local Indian practices and expectations. Professed

policies and procedures are not followed within the organization. It appears

that, on the face of it, the entire management is not working. Yet, organizations

do move and, by and large, produce substantial results. This is because, as

many have said, management in an organization is effected ‘somehow’. The

dualism lies here.

Organisation is an artificial entity created to achieve a set of goals. It has its own set of

processes and systems and more importantly a culture, a way of doing business. The

organisational culture, through its explicit rules and unspelt norms allow certain kinds of

behaviour and discourage other kinds of behaviour.

Organisational members tend to adapt their behaviour according to work contexts.

Individuals, though, tend to restrain their natural behaviour in organisational context, yet

have the tendency to behave in a manner, which is similar to their behaviour in other

societal contexts.

6.5 Context-specific behavioural patterns

We have elaborated the five generic behavioural patterns in Section 5.2. In this section,

we are presenting the probable behavioural patterns as exhibited by the three ideal types

of Indians in three distinct work contexts. Some of these behavioural patterns are variants

of generic behavioural patterns mentioned above (Table 4).

Figure 1 depicts how socialisation process influences the development of worldviews,

which dictates the behavioural patterns in different work contexts.

Table 4 The taxonomy of Indian behaviour

Western MNOs

Government

organisations

amil

-owned

organisations

Traditional

collectivist Indian

Covert parochial/

paternalistic (subtle

personalised) work

behaviour

MWB Parochial/paternalistic/

ingratiating (gross

personalised) work

behaviour

Hybrid Indian MWB MWB MWB

Westernised

individualist Indian

GIWB Judicious/cautious

(subtle) impersonal

work behaviour

Judicious/cautious (subtle)

impersonal work behaviour

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Figure 1 Deconstructing the ‘person’ and the ‘work context’ to develop the taxonomy of work

behaviour

Notes:

a Primary socialisation takes place within a family. The nature of in-family socialisation

depends on where the person lives in (urban/cosmopolitan/metro vs. non-

urban/rural/traditional setting). It happens in the early part of life usually before one

turns 12.

b Secondary socialisation takes place in educational institutions at secondary and higher

level. It includes one’s exposure to education system with Western/indigenous ethos.

c As conceptualised by Sinha et al. (2002).

6.5.1 Traditional collectivist Indians in three work contexts

Traditional collectivist Indians tend to have dominant familial worldview with a possible

awareness of Anglo-Saxon worldview. Their natural work behaviour pattern is guided by

the saliency they tend to attach to personalised relationship. For them, building and

nurturing relationship is considered salient in every situation and context. The demand

arising out of maintaining a relationship is considered more important than getting things

done. The saliency that is attached to personalised relationship leads in ‘parochial’,

‘paternalistic’ and at times ‘ingratiating’ relationship. Such behaviour comes naturally to

them.

The work context of family-owned organisations seems to be the most conducive one

for organisational members to express such behaviour spontaneously. In contrast, the

Western MNOs may not be the right context for such behaviour, where system and

process orientation remains at the core of organisational culture. How does a traditional

collectivist Indian behave in three work contexts?

She/he would demonstrate work behaviour marked with ‘ingratiation’, ‘parochialism’

and ‘paternalism’ in family-owned organisations. She/he would form cliques with co-

employees from the same caste, community and location. Such parochial behaviour, as

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

Roland argues, is a manifestation of ‘familial community self, marked with emotional

reciprocity’. Such work behaviour tends to be predominant and overt in family-owned

entities. System and process orientation seems to be largely absent in such organisations.

Attrition of this kind of Indians would probably be low, as they may be comfortable with

a work culture, which is marked with ‘ingratiation’ and ‘parochialism’.

However, such work behaviour is rarely encouraged by the Western multinational or

professionally managed organisations. System and process orientation tends to be salient.

Hence, traditional collectivist Indian would covertly attempt to form and maintain cliques

to the extent the work culture would allow in a covert manner, in spite of the fact that

such work behaviour may be construed as unprofessional and political. Traditionally,

collectivist Indians might find themselves out of place in professionally managed

(multinational) organisations. Or else, they may engage themselves in forming cliques

with the people belonging to same caste, community and speaking the same language and

survive as long as they can.

However, such Indians tend to express both kinds of behaviour in government

organisations, depending on the context. They would follow or bypass the systems and

processes depending on the situation. The situation is determined primarily by the

persons they are dealing with, whether they are part of the ‘in-group’ or ‘out-group’.

While dealing with people who are the part of their ‘in-group’, they may bypass the

systems and processes with ease, whereas when they are dealing with people who are not

part of their in-group, they may mechanistically follow the systems and processes.

6.5.2 Westernised individualist Indians in three work contexts

The Westernised individualist Indians, as mentioned earlier, is socialised to have a

dominant Anglo-Saxon worldview, with a streak of familial Hindu worldview. They tend

to be highly ‘impersonal’ and system and process oriented in their interactions with

people and task performance, respectively. Such a predisposition tends to influence their

work behaviour in different work contexts.

In Western MNOs, this type of Indians tends to be more natural compared to the two

other work contexts, namely family-owned and public sector organisations, where they

need to be more judicious and cautious. They cannot be as impersonal as they might

naturally like to be. They have to strike a balance between the demands necessary to

maintain personalised relationship and demands emanating from getting work done

systematically leveraging the systems and processes. For which, they tend to assess

various implications of demonstrating one kind of behaviour. However, they would not

be highly influenced by the need to maintain a relationship. Most often they would

sacrifice relationship for systems and processes.

6.5.3 Hybrid Indians in three work contexts

Hybrid Indians possess hybrid selves, with a blend of two worldviews – familial Hindu

and Anglo-Saxon. Such Indians are comfortable in behaving in both ways. Both kinds of

behavioural patterns come naturally to them. They can follow systems and processes with

ease in one situation, whereas can bypass them in another situation. The nature of the

situation is determined by the person they are dealing. They adapt themselves easily to

different situations.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

This type of Indian is the most adaptable of the three types. They could behave in

both individualistic and collectivistic way depending on the situation. It is very difficult

to decipher the intention and manifested behavioural pattern of this group of Indians.

We present the taxonomy of the context-sensitive behavioural pattern of the Indians

in Figure 2.

Figure 2 The taxonomy of context-sensitive behavioural patterns of the Indians

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

The proposed taxonomy mentioned above has attempted to conjecture the link between

five patterns of behaviour as demonstrated by three ideal types of Indians in three

different work contexts, with different work cultures. We have identified five patterns of

behaviour in nine work situations. The manifested behavioural patterns are triggered by

the situation and the worldviews of the three types of the Indians. In Section 5.6, we have

attempted to associate five behavioural dispositions as conceptualised by Sinha et al.

(2002) with three ideal types of Indians in terms of their dominant behavioural patterns.

6.6 Mapping Sinha et al.’s (2002) five behavioural dispositions to three types of

Indians

Sinha et al. (2002) have identified five behavioural patterns (CC, IC, II, CI and C&I).

Can we map these five behavioural patterns to the three types of Indians identified on the

basis of early socialisation?

It is safe to conjecture that traditional collectivist Indians would primarily be

collectivist (CC and IC) in their behavioural orientation because of their ‘familial self’

and relational worldview. By the same logic, the Westernised individualist Indians might

be primarily demonstrating ‘individualist’ (II and CI) behavioural pattern as they posses

‘autonomous’ and independent self with Anglo-Saxon worldview. The hybrid Indian

would be exhibiting a blend of both kinds of behavioural patterns (C&I) as their early

socialisation has helped developed a hybrid self. Based on the above conjectures, we

hypothesise that:

H1: The traditional collectivist Indian is collectivist (CC, IC) in his or her behaviour

(irrespective of the intention that triggers such behaviour), whereas the Westernised

individualist Indian would be behaving in an individualist (II, CI) manner (irrespective of

her/his intention). The hybrid Indian would demonstrate mixed behavioural pattern

(C&I).

H2: The hybrid Indian would be perceived as more unpredictable compared to other two

types, Westernised individualist and traditional collectivist.

6.7 Person organisation fitment and human resources implications

The traditional collectivist Indians would be spontaneous in terms of their work

behaviour in family-owned businesses, whereas the Westernised individualist Indians

would be spontaneous in MNOs. This understanding leads us to conjecture that

H3: The attrition rate of the traditional collectivist Indians in family-owned organisation

would be less MNOs.

H4: The attrition rate of the Westernised individualist Indians in the family-owned

organisations would be higher compared to government-owned organisations as well as

MNOs.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

6.8 Will there be a shift in context-sensitive behavioural pattern with

modernisation?

Ramanujan argues that with modernisation of Indian society, there has been a movement

from context-sensitive to context-free thinking at least in principle. For instance, today,

people can listen to any raga at any time rather than strictly sticking to the time

prescribed. However, new thoughts and behaviours borrowed from the West do not

completely replace the traditional ideas. They get incorporated with the existing tradition.

In ‘ayudha puja’, even computers and type-writers are worshipped instead of weapons.

Therefore, no matter how hard we try to move to become a context-free society, the result

is that we end up creating a new Indian context. As Ramanujan (1990, p.57) himself

states:

When Indians learn, quite expertly, modern science, business or technology,

they ‘compartmentalize’ these interests…; the new ways of thought and

behaviour do not replace, but live along with the older religious ways…. The

modern, the context-free becomes one more context.

7 Summary and conclusion

We have attempted to deconstruct the context-sensitive nature of Indian behaviour in a

systematic manner based on the findings of earlier studies. We operationalised context as

an interaction of person and situation. We identified three ideal types of Indians and three

work contexts. There are five unique patterns of behaviour as demonstrated by these three

ideal types of Indians in three work contexts. We presented the taxonomy of behavioural

pattern that would help us to understand how three ideal types of Indians would behave in

three work contexts. We have also proposed a set of hypotheses to be empirically tested

to validate the applicability of the proposed taxonomy.

This would help practitioners and expatriates understand and predict how different

kinds of Indians would behave in three different work contexts namely family-owned

organisations, government organisations and MNCs. It would also help human resources

practitioners address fitment issues (person-role fitment), and also, design and deploy

right kind of people practices that would motivate employees to excel in their roles.

The taxonomy presented here, however, tentative and conjectural in nature, which

needs to be further empirically validated and tested. In spite of this limitation, the

taxonomy, we believe, would contribute to the understanding of Indians’ behaviour in a

significant manner.

We have not included non-work (social) contexts in this taxonomy due to the space

constraint, which would be taken up in another paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Moreover, they would like to acknowledge the assistance with English language editing

provided by Ms Ruby Dash.

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

References

Adler, N. and Jelinek, M. (1986) ‘Is “organization culture” culture” culture bound?’, Human

Resource Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.73–90.

Arora, D. (2005) Foreign Multinationals in India: Adapting to India’s Work Culture and

Management Practices. Available at: http://www.f3.htw-erlin.de/Professoren/Arora/

discussion_paper/Foreign_Multinationals_in_India_Dayanand-Arora.pdf, Accessed on 25

January 2011.

Asthana, H.S. (1956) ‘Some aspects of personality structuring in Indian (Hindu) social

organizations’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp.155–163.

Berry, J.W. (1994) ‘Ecology of individualism and collectivism’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis,

C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,

Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.77–84.

Bharati, A. (1985) ‘The self in Hindu thought and action’, in A. Marsella, G. DeVos and

F.L.K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self. New York: Tavistock Publications, pp.185–230.

Braasch, S. (1999) ‘Expatriates in India: cultural specific leadership and its potential’, Unpublished

Dissertation No. 2265, Submitted to the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Brislin, R. and Yoshida, T. (1994) Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carstairs, G.M. (1957) The Twice Born. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Carstairs, G.M. (1971) The Twice Born. Bombay: Asia Publishers.

Chen, G.M. (2007) ‘A review of the concept of intercultural effectiveness’, in M. Hinner (Ed.),

The Influence of Culture in the World of Business. Germany: Peter Lang, pp.97–115.

Daab, W.Z. (1991) ‘Changing perspectives on individualism’, Paper presented at the Helsinki

Meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, July.

Derné, S. (2000) ‘Culture, family structure, and “psyche” in Hindu India: the “fit” and the

“inconsistencies”’, Int. J. Group Tensions, Vol. 29, Nos. 3–4, pp.323–348.

Dowling, P. (1999) International Human Resource Management: Managing People in

Multinational Context. Cincinnati: South Western College Publications.

Dumont, L. (1970) Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. Chicago, IL:

Chicago University Press.

England, G.W. (1975) The Manager and His Values: An International Perspective. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

England, G.W. (1978) ‘Managers and their value systems: a five country comparative study’,

Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 13, Summer, pp.35–44.

Epstein, S. (1979) ‘The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time’,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp.1097–1126.

Erikson, E.H. (1979) Dimensions of a New Identity: The Jefferson Lectures in Humanities.

New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Friedman, T.L. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Funder, D.C. (2005) ‘Toward a resolution of the personality triad: persons, situations, and

behaviors’, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40, pp.21–34.

Fusilier, M. and Durlabhji, S. (2001) ‘Cultural values of Indian managers: an exploration through

unstructured interviews’, Int. J. Value-Based Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.223–236.

Gabeler, J. (1996) ‘Intercultural co-operation between Germans and Indians’, Unpublished Study

for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.

Gannon, M.J. (1994) Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 17

Countries. London: Sage Publications.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Gannon, M.J. (2004) Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 28 Nations,

Clusters of Nations, and Continents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Garg, P.K. and Parikh, I.J. (1995) Crossroads of Culture: A Study in the Culture of Transience.

New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Ger, G. (1999) ‘Localizing in the global village: local firms competing in global markets’,

California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.64–83.

Gopalan, S. and Rivera, J.B. (1997) ‘Gaining a perspective on Indian value orientations:

implications for expatriate managers’, Int. J. Organizational Research, Vol. 5, No. 2,

pp.156–179.

Gudykunst, W.B., Stewart, L.P. and Toomey, S.T. (1985) Communication, Culture and

Organizational Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gupta, R.K and Panda A. (2003) ‘Individualized familial self: the evolving self of qualified

technocrats in India’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.1–29.

Gustavsson, B. (1997) Transition or Transcendence? A Study of Indian Managerial Values.

Research Monograph, Management Centre for Human Values, IIM Calcutta.

Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.

London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1993) ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, Academy of Management

Executive, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.81–94.

Hsu, F.L.K. (1963) Clan, Caste and Club. New York: van Nostrand.

Hughes, M.L. (2002) ‘A theoretical and empirical analysis of Chinese and Indian negotiating

behaviour’, Unpublished Master Thesis, The Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.

Inglehart, R. (2000) ‘Culture and democracy’, in L.E. Harrison and S.P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture

Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books, pp.80–97.

Johnson, F. (1985) ‘The Western concept of self’, in A. Marsella, G. DeVos and F. Hsu (Eds.),

Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. NY: Tavistock, pp.91–138.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1994) ‘A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: toward a new

formulation’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.),

Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

pp.52–65.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1996a) ‘The autonomous-relational self: a new synthesis’, European Psychologist,

Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.180–186.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1996b) Family and Human Development Across Cultures: A View from the Other

Side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kakar, S. (1971a) ‘Authority patterns and subordinate behaviour in Indian organizations’,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp.298–307.

Kakar, S. (1971b) ‘Themes of authority in social relations in India’, Journal of Social Psychology,

Vol. 84, pp.93–101.

Kakar, S. (1981) The Innerworld: A Psychoanalytic Study of Childhood and Society in India. Delhi:

Oxford University Press.

Kakar, S. and Kakar, K. (2007) The Indians: Portrait of a People. New Delhi: Viking/Penguin.

Kedia, B.L. and Bhagat, R.S. (1988) ‘Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations:

implications for research in international and comparative management’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 13, pp.558–571.

Kim, Y. (2003) ‘Global auto companies and their supplier relationships in India’, Eleventh

GERPISA International Colloquium, 11–13 June, Ministere de la Recherche, Paris, France.

Kipling, R. (1920) The White Man’s Burden (Verse 371–372). New York: Doubleday.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,

Peterson.

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

Kumar, D.S. (1996) ‘Work values and organizational commitment: a study of managers in public

and private sector organizations’, PhD Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Kumar, R. (2004) ‘Brahmanical idealism, anarchical individualism, and dynamics of Indian

negotiating behaviour’, Int. J. Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.39–58.

Kumar, R. (2005) ‘Negotiating with the complex, imaginative Indian’, Ivey Business Journal,

Reprint No. 9B05TB04, March–April, Available at: http://www.opus-seminars.com/zarticles/

RK-Negotiating-India.pdf, Accessed on 20 March 2010.

Lather, A.S., Shilpi, J. and Shukla, A. (2011) ‘Cross-cultural conflict resolution styles: an extensive

literature review’, Asian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 2, Special Issue, pp.130–146.

Online Open Access Publishing Platform for Management Research.

Laurent, A. (1983) ‘The cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management’, International

Studies of Man and Organization, Vol. 13, Nos. 1–2, pp.75–76.

Lewis, O. (1962) Village Life in Northern India. New York: Vintage Publishers.

Marriott, M. (1976) ‘Hindu transaction: diversity without dualism’, in B. Kapferer (Ed.),

Transaction and Meaning: Direction in Anthropology of Exchange and Symbolic Behaviour.

Philadelphia: Ishi, pp.209–237.

Marriott, M. (1990) ‘Constructing an Indian ethnosociology’, in M. Marriott (Ed.), India through

Hindu Categories. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.1–39.

Marriott, M. and Inden, R. (1974) ‘Caste system’, Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.), Vol. 3,

pp.982–991.

Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mishra, R.C. (1994) ‘Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations’, in U. Kim,

H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism:

Theory, Method and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.225–238.

Nakamura, H. (1964) Ways of Thinking of Eastern People: India, China, Tibet and Japan.

Honolulu: East West Center Press.

Nakane, C. (1964) Japanese Society. Berkeley: University of California.

Narain, D. (1957) Hindu Character. Bombay: University of Bombay Press.

Panda, A. (2004) ‘In-family socialization effects on organizational culture and employees’ job

related attitudes: a comparative study of Gujarat and Orissa’, Unpublished FPM Thesis,

Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India.

Paranjape, A.C. (1984) Theoretical Psychology: The Meeting of East and West. New York:

Plenum.

Paranjape, A.C. (1988) ‘A personality theory according to Vedanta’, in A.C. Paranjape, D.X.E. Ho

and R.W. Ribber (Eds.), Asian Contributions to Psychology. New York: Praeger, pp.185–213.

Ramanujan, A.K. (1989) ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay’, Contributions to

Indian Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.41–58.

Ramanujan, A.K. (1990) ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking?’, in M. Marriott (Ed.), India through

Hindu Categories. New Delhi: Sage, pp.41–58.

Roland, A. (1984) ‘The self in India and America’, in V. Kavolis (Ed.), In Design of Selfhood.

New Jersey: Associated University Press, pp.170–191.

Roland, A. (1987) ‘The familial self, the individualized self and the transcendent self:

psychoanalytic reflections on India and America’, Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. 74, No. 2,

pp.237–250.

Roland, A. (1988) In Search of Self in India and Japan: Towards a Cross-cultural Psychology.

New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Schulberg, L. (1968) Historic India, Great Ages of Man: A History of the World Culture Series.

Amsterdam: Time Life International.

Schwartz, S.H. (1999) ‘A theory of cultural values and some implications for work’, Applied

Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, No. 11, pp.23–47.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Shweder, R. and Bourne, E.J. (1984) ‘Does the concept of the persona vary cross-culturally’, in

R. Shweder and R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion.

New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.158–199.

Sinha, D. (1979) ‘The young and old: ambiguity of role models and values among Indian youth’, in

S. Kakar (Ed.), Identity and Adulthood. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.56–64.

Sinha, D. (1988) ‘Basic Indian values and behaviour disposition in the context of national

development’, in D. Sinha and H.S.R. Kao (Eds.), Social Values and Development: Asian

Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage, pp.31–55.

Sinha, D. and Tripathi, R.C. (1994) ‘Individualism in a collective culture: a case of coexistence of

opposites’, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.),

Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage,

pp.123–136.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1980) The Nurturant Task Leadership. New Delhi: Concept Publishing.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1982) ‘Power structural, perceptual, frame and behavioural strategies in a dyadic

relationship’, in R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, D. Sinha, J.B.P. Sinha (Eds.), Diversity and Unity in

Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp.308–316.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1988) Work Cultures in Indian Organizations. Patna: A N Sinha Institute of Social

Studies.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1990a) Work Culture in the Indian Context. New Delhi: Sage.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1990b) ‘The salient Indian values and their socio-ecological roots’, Indian Journal of

Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.478–488.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1993) ‘Cultural embeddedness and developmental role of industrial organizations in

India’, in M.V. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Vol. IV. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1997) ‘Indian perspectives on leadership and power in organizations’, in H.S.R. Kao

and D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian Perspectives on Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

pp.218–235.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2000) ‘Towards indigenization of psychology in India’, Psychological Studies,

Vol. 45, Nos. 1–2, pp.3–13.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2002) ‘A cultural frame for understanding organizational behaviour’, Psychology and

Developing Societies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.155–166.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2004) Multinationals in India Managing the Interfaces of Cultures. New Delhi: Sage.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2005a) ‘Indians’ shifting cultural frame for managing people in organizations’, Paper

presented during the Workshop on Indian Culture and Management at COSMODE

Management Research Center, Hyderabad, 14–16 April.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2005b) ‘Conceptualizing Indian mindset: evidence and speculations’, Paper

presented during an International Conference on Understanding India at Aarhus School of

Business, Aarhus, Denmark, 3–5 November 2005.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2008) Culture and Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: Sage.

Sinha, J.B.P. (in press) ‘The shifting mindset of Indians’, in G. Misra (Ed.), Discipline of

Psychology in the Series. The History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture (General

Editor, D.P. Chattopadhyay).

Sinha, J.B.P. and Kanungo, R.N. (1997) ‘Context sensitivity and balancing in organizational

behaviour’, Int. J. Psychology, Vol. 32, pp.93–105.

Sinha, J.B.P. and Pandey, A. (2007) ‘Indians’ mindsets and the conditions that evoke them’,

National Academy of Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.1–13.

Sinha, J.B.P. and Sinha, D. (1995) ‘Role of social values in Indian organizations’, in H.S.R. Kao,

D. Sinha and S-H. Ng (Eds.), Effective Organizations and Social Values, New Delhi: Sage,

pp.164–173.

econstructing contex

ensitive nature of Indians’ behaviou

Sinha, J.B.P. and Verma, J. (1987) ‘Structure of collectivism’, in C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth

and Progress in Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zetlinger,

pp.123–129.

Sinha, J.B.P., Bhupatkar, A.P., Anand, G., Rajen, K., Panda, A., Singh, S., Singh-Sengupta, S.,

Sinha, R.B.N. and Srinivas, E.S. (2003) ‘Facets of societal and organizational cultures and

managers’ work related thoughts and feelings’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 16,

No. 1, pp.1–25.

Sinha, J.B.P., Daftaur, C.N., Gupta, R.K., Mishra, R.C., Jayseetha, R., Jha, S.S., Verma, J. and

Vijaykumar, V.S.R. (1994) ‘Regional similarities and differences in people’s beliefs, practices

and preferences’, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.131–150.

Sinha, J.B.P, Sinha, T.N, Verma, J. and Sinha, R.B.N. (2001a) ‘Collectivism coexisting

with individualism: an Indian scenario’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2,

pp.133–145.

Sinha, J.B.P., Sinha, T.N., Verma, J. and Sinha, R.B.N. (2001b) ‘Collectivism coexisting with

individualism: an Indian scenario’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp.133–145.

Sinha, J.B.P., Singh, S., Gupta, P., Srivastava, K.B.L., Sinha, R.B.N., Srivastava, S., Ghosh, A.,

Siddiqui, R.N., Tripathi, N., Gupta, M., Srivastava, S., Mulla, Z., Vijayalakshmi, C. and

Pandey, A. (2010) ‘An exploration of Indian mindset’, Psychological Studies, Vol. 55, No. 1,

pp.3–17.

Sinha, J.B.P., Vohra, N., Singhal, S., Sinha, R.B.N. and Ushashree, S. (2002) ‘Normative

predictions of collectivist-individualist intentions and behaviour of Indians’, Int. J.

Psychology, Vol. 37, pp.309–319.

Singh, P. and Das, G. (1977a) ‘Managerial style of Indian managers’, ASCI Journal of

Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–11.

Singh, P. and Das, G. (1977b) ‘Occupational values of Indian managers’, Decision, Vol. 4,

pp.327–342.

Singh, R.B.P. and Sinha, J.B.P. (1992) ‘Darker side of manager-worker relationship in a coal area

in India’, in R. DeRidder and R.C. Tripathi (Eds.), Norm Violation and Intergroup Relations.

London: OUP, pp.90–115.

Sperling, J.B. (1969) The Human Dimension of Technical Assistance: The German Experience at

Rourkela, India. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Spratt, P. (1966) Hindu Culture and Personality: A Psycho-analytic Study. Bombay: Manathalas.

Srinivas, N. (1994) ‘Management education and work motivation in developing societies’, in

R.N. Kanungo and M. Mendonca (Eds.), Work Motivation: Models for Developing Countries.

New Delhi: Sage, pp.230–247.

The GLOBE Study (Gupta, V., Surie, G., Javidan, M. and Chhokar, J.) (2002) ‘South Asian cluster:

where the old meets new?’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.10–27.

Triandis, H.C. (1994) Culture and Social Behaviour. NY: McGraw Hill.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: West View Press.

Tripathi, R.C. (1988) ‘Aligning development to values in India’, in D. Sinha and H.S.R. Kao

(Eds.), Social Values and Development: Asian Perspective. New Delhi: Sage, pp.315–333.

Tripathi, R.C. (1990) ‘Interplay of values in the functioning of organizations’, Int. J. Psychology,

Vol. 25, pp.715–734.

Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in

Business. London: The Economist Books.

Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.A. and Ou, A.Y. (2007) ‘Cross national cross cultural organizational

behaviour research: advances, gaps and recommendations’, Journal of Management, Vol. 33,

No. 3, pp.426–478.

Verma, J. (2011) ‘Understanding the global Indian mindset’, Lecture at University of Vienna, 29

March 2011.

. Panda and R.K. Gupta

Virmani, B.R. (1997) ‘Changing work practices: world scenario and Indian imperatives’, Abhigyan,

Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.23–32.

Virmani, B.R. (2000) Managing People in Organization, Response Books. New Delhi: Sage

Publication.

Virmani, B.R. (2005) ‘Cultural dilemma in Indian management’, Paper submitted in Workshop on

Indian Culture and Management, COSMODE Management Research Centre, Hyderabad,

14–16 April.

Virmani, B.R. and Guptan, S. (1991) Indian Management. New Delhi: Vision Books.

Notes

1 Available at: http://www.moneymint.in/business/steep-rise-in-mergers-and-acquisitions-during-

q1-2010-up-by-76, Accessed on 20 November 2010.

2 Available at: http://www.investinindia.com/investmentindia/2010/06/30/indian-mergers-and-

acquisition-investments-increases-four-fold/, Accessed on 21 February 2011.

3 Available at: http://www.brookfieldgrs.com/knowledge/grts_research/, Accessed on 21 February

2011.

4 Available at: http://www.livemint.com/2010/05/16224221/Indian-firms-turn-to-expats.html,

Accessed on 21 February 2011.

5 Cited in Business Today, 10 July 2006, p.29.

6 Overview: Is there An Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, 2 October 2009, PSENG

2010 Study Group, Available at: http://pseng2010.blogspot.com/2009/10/overview-is-there-

indian-way-of.html, Accessed on 26 November 2010.

7 Overview: Is there An Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, 2 October 2009, PSENG

2010 Study Group, Available at: http://pseng2010.blogspot.com/2009/10/overview-is-there-

indian-way-of.html, Accessed on 10 January 2011.

The role of psychological ownership in linkage between organisational justice and citizenship behaviour: evidence from India

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2014

The present study intends to explain the relationship between justice and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) by assessing the role of psychological ownership as a mediator. It also responds to the call from scholars for conducting more research towards antecedents of psychological ownership. It is proposed (and later empirically tested) that perceived fairness (perception) in organisation leads to development of ownership feeling (attitude) for the organisation which, in turn, results in demonstration of OCB (behaviour). Impact of different dimensions of justice on psychological ownership and organisation-based and individual-based citizenship behaviour (OCB-O and OCB-I respectively) is investigated. Employees from a major Indian IT company participated in the study and both online and paper-based questionnaire survey methods were used to minimise common method variance. Subsequent analyses revealed differential nature of relationship of different justice dimensions with ownership and OCB-O and OCB-I. Also relationship between justice dimensions and OCB dimensions were variously mediated by psychological ownership. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.

Unravelling the layers of Indian culture and worldview: an exploratory study

Article

Jan 2021

The purpose of this exploratory study is to explore worldview of budding Indian management professionals. Taking an interpretivist epistemological position, this paper attempt to address the ontological perspective of Indians. Respondents were asked to write their views on ‘What is reality according to people around you?’ Followed by one 90-minute focus group discussion (FGD) and two in-depth interviews were conducted. Four types of analyses were conducted to minimise researcher bias and touch deeper layer of meaning. Based on Schein’s layers of culture, the paper ends by proposing multiple layers in Indian culture namely, basic assumptions, values and artefacts. Paper conjecture ‘go with the flow’ or samarpan (devotion) as the deep-rooted philosophy or basic assumption that influences Indian values and practices. Typical Indian values: faith in God, paradoxical mindset, family orientation, contextual sensitivity, and tolerance. The physical artefacts: jugaad, adaptability, visit to temples, prayers, fasting, yoga, meditation and tolerance for ambiguity.

Unravelling the Layers of Indian Culture and Worldview: an exploratory study

Article

Jan 2020

Classification of retail investors a behavioural study

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2016

Investors around the world often fail to succeed in the stock market due to shortcomings in their personalattributes and approach to investment. There are numerous studies on the personal attribute of the investor but only few studies have looked into the approaches to investment in market situations. This is an empirical study which aims to classify retail investors based on their Pre Investing and Post investing approaches. We have used Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify various investor types on the basis of their approach and categorize them as Market-driven, Planning-driven, Safety-driven, Advice-driven, Time-driven, Caution-driven investors. Further, we check how the contributing approaches lead to expected return for each investor type. We find Market, Planning, and Caution-driven investors are able to achieve their expected return, whereas Advice-driven investors are not able to do so. Our study indicates that planning at individual level, market driven strategy and ability to book loss are useful in fetching desired return by the investor. Both time-driven long term investors, investing on the advice of friends and safety driven investors, who display safe approach by choosing good broker/good advisors and tangible companies, are found not to achieve expected return. Investors depending fully on brokers' advice may end up making loss in the market. The study will help in providing investor specific education by identifying their behavioral weakness.

Management education in India: a fit case for reengineering

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2015

Abinash Panda

Mintzberg (2004) in his book Managers not MBAs has noted that an MBA course tends to focus on analytical skills, and hence, prepares students for nothing. Ghosal (2005) has noted that bad management theories were destroying good management practices. Bennis and O'Toole (2005) have attributed the failure to produce relevant research to business schools' obsession for scientific research and hiring professors with limited organisational experience, who end up producing research and teaching that is not relevant to managers and organisations outside. The issue of 'irrelevance' of management education is more acutely experienced in India as business schools in India tend to rely on the Western world even for the text books. It is high time to revitalise management education in India by contextualising both course curriculum and andragogy. This paper has made a serious attempt and offered a few suggestions to re-engineer the management education in India. The author has argued and presents a case for educators and educational administrators to take a fresh look at the course curriculum, andragogy, and students' learning outcomes of management education in India.

Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction

Book

Jan 1994

Does the Concept of the Person Vary Cross-Culturally?

Article

Jan 1984

Basic Indian values and behaviour dispositions in the context of national development

Article

Jan 1988

D. Sinha

The self in India and America

Article

Jan 1984

A. Roland

On ‘Constructing an Indian ethnosociology’

Article

Jul 1991

M. Marriott

Culture and organizational behaviour

Book

Jan 2008

J.B.P. Sinha

Culture and Organizational Behaviour is a modular textbook that highlights the effect of the confluence of western and Indian cultural influences. This book presents the basic knowledge of organizational behavior as developed in the west, adds the latest global research findings, and situates them in the Indian cultural perspective. The book also highlights new issues that emanate from the interface of Indian culture and organizational behavior. Key Features: Simple and relatively jargon-free language, accompanied by an Instructor's Manual; Measures and questionnaires for illustrations, discussions, and further explorations of researchable ideas; and Attempts to create enough space for the students, faculty, researchers, and policy makers to address theoretical as well as practical issues.

The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management

Article

Mar 1983

André Laurent

Is There a Hindu Way of Thinking

Article

Jan 1990

A.K. Ramanujan

An effort towards understanding the global Indian mind set

Article

Jan 2013

J. Verma

Mind represents intellect while mind set determines a person's attitude and approach. Identity conceptualized as 'aspects of individuality', 'self-sameness' and 'unique way of going through life and relationships' is also envisaged as 'national character' and 'mentality'. Global identity requires restructuring of personal, emotional and behavioral domains and working with one's mind set. Behind the global face of Indians is an Indian mind set featuring differential sensitivity to the context, nearness and distance in relationships, belief in power distance, and long term perspective, hope and balancing disposition. These cultural features contribute in making of the global Indian. Moreover, knowing the harsh social reality motivates Indians towards sensible economic behavior while their entrepreneurial spirit and spiritual orientation help them become successful and manage difficulties.

The western concept of self

Article

F. Johnson

Deconstructing context-sensitive nature of Indians' behaviour: a preliminary attempt to develop a taxonomy for three work contexts

Abstract and Figures

Recommendations

Why do leadership development efforts fail in organisations in India and what can be done about it

Flexible Offshore Outsourcing- Global Software Development using Virtual Teams

Study of organizational change in Public Sector bank in India

Proud to Be a Public Servant? An Analysis of the Work-Related Determinants of Professional Pride amo...

Taxonomy of amoebae placed in the order Amoebida. Kent 1880

The Impact of Knowledge Management Strategies on Organizational Performance: Part I: Developing a Mo...

Ontology-Based Knowledge Capture and Sharing in Enterprise Organisations

A Short History Regarding the Taxonomy and Systematic Researches of Platygastroidea (Hymenoptera)