Introduction

Are workplace practices shaped by national context? Are those practices embedded, inflexible, path-dependent? Is there a national path? Is there a single ‘best fit’ between practices and specific national contexts? Norbert Elias observes that ‘[s]ocial norms are often discussed in a manner which suggests that the norms of one and the same society are all of a piece’ (1996: 158). Belief in such uniformity is the bedrock of the notion of enduring and determining national culture popular in the management literature (Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier, 2002; Søndergaard, 1994). In contrast to national homogeneity claims, however, Elias argues that ‘[i]n societies above a specific level of differentiation, inherently contradictory codes of norms can co-exist in varying degrees of amalgamation and separation. Each may be activated in different situations and at different times.’

In line with Elias's view, and against the image of static mono-national cultures, the existence of dynamic cultural diversity within countries is argued for in this chapter. It does so through a rereading of the national cultural literature itself against a backdrop of contrary data. An analysis of the key categories and claims in the national culture literature and of its reliance on discarded concepts from other disciplines shows that it inappropriately represents national heterogeneity as homogeneity. It spreads, as Maurice Farber says, a ‘homogeneous semantic veneer over the cracks in the social structure of nations’ (1950: 311).