Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Culture and Subordinate Participation in Decision-Making
Process: A Study of Four Companies in Bangladesh
Shaidul Kazi*
This paper explores the impact of culture in organizational decision-making
process in Bangladesh. In an organization, decisions a manager makes are
usually dependent upon his/her position in the organizational hierarchy, but
how those decisions are made or which decision-making style autocratic-,
pseudo-consultative-, consultative-, participative- or delegatory style is
adopted is influenced by organizational culture. The main source of
organization culture is national culture but family culture is the root of the
organizational- and the national culture. The core issue in the paper is to
examine how managers ensure subordinate participation or share power in
the decision-making process. The paper is based on the PhD dissertation of
the author entitled “Managerial Decision-Making Behavior and Impact of
Culture. Experience from three Countries: India, Bangladesh and Finland”
which was defended on 18.12.2009, at the Faculty of Economics and
Administration, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Field of Research: Management
1. Introduction
Managerial decision-making style varies across cultures. In decision-making, culture is one
factor among many others which is active in shaping and reshaping the ongoing process
and the eventual decision. As the core issue of analysis, the paper analyses the participation
issue in the managerial decision-making process in Bangladesh from the managerial point
of view. It examines how managers ensure subordinate participation in the decision-making
process in the case companies. While gathering empirical information, the author found
evidence of differences in the methods used for ensuring subordinate participation in
managerial decision-making process. Therefore, the hypothesis of the study is that the
decision-making style displayed by managers in ensuring subordinates’ participation is
contingent on cultural factors; organizational- and national culture. The family culture is
considered here as core factor.
2. Literature review
The central issues of the study are culture, decision-making and methods of power sharing
or modes of participation. A brief discussion on each of the issue would help us to reach to
the main objectives of the study.
2.1. Culture
How culture is perceived is a factor depends on who will be using it and in which context. For the
purpose of the study “culture is considered as something which is comprised of norms and values
and governs human behaviour to a particular direction, which is learned, does not change easily,
which is characteristic of a particular group and which is transmitted over time from one generation
to the other"(Kazi, 2009: 97) According to Holden, culture can be used to represent an organizing
principle at different levels of human endeavour, for example, the international, the national, the
regional, the organizational, the professional and the personal (Holden, 2002: 22). The target of the
current study is to focus on the national- and organizational culture (see figure 1) and their impact
upon subordinate participation in the decision-making process in Bangladesh.
*Dr Shaidul Kazi, Business Administration and Services, Tampere University of Applied Sciences, Kuntokatu
3, FI-33520 Tampere, Finland. Email: Shaidul.Kazi@tamk.fi
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Figure 1: A hypothetical model: Showing factors influencing organizational decisionmaking style (Kazi, 2009: 45).
Factors
influencing
participation
Decision-making
styles or methods
of participation
National
culture
Organisational
culture
Decision-making
style
Autocratic
Globalisation
Pseudo-consultative
Founder of the
company
Consultative
Stockholders/
owner (s)
Participative
Industry of
operation
Organisational
decisionmaking
Delegatory
Competitors
2.1.1. National culture typology
National culture is one of the main sources of organisational culture. Kakabadse states that
cultural differences exist between people of different nationalities. From one country to
another, people speak different languages, dress differently, enjoy different cuisines, and
identify with different social customs. Moreover, cultural differences exist within any country
(Kakabadse, 1982: 11) and which can be exemplified, among others, through ethnic
affiliation, regional differences, and languages spoken. Regardless of the intra-country
differences, each country possesses some cultural features which are someway unique from
the others. Apart from Kakabadse, Hofstede also acknowledges national cultural
differences. His famous study on the IBM subsidiaries in over forty different countries shows
the cultural differences between nationalities. Hofstede expressed those differences through
his famous four dimensions (Hofstede, 1991, 2001, and Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).
Power distance - the dimension measures the equality of power distribution between boss
and subordinate. High power distance means that in that culture bosses have much more
power than their subordinates. In low power distance countries, bosses treat their
subordinates as peers. Bangladesh is a high power distance country with a score of 80
points (http://geert-hofstede.com/bangladesh.html. Accessed: 3.9.2015 at 12.48).
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Uncertainty avoidance - high uncertainty avoidance indicates that the culture likes to try to
control the future. According to Handy uncertainty avoidance is associated with dogmatism
and authoritarianism, with traditionalism and superstition (Handy, 1988: 201). Here
Bangladesh has scored 60 points (http://geert-hofstede.com/bangladesh.html. Accessed:
3.9.2015 at 13.30) which means that Bangladesh is a high uncertainty avoidance country.
Individualism - as described by Hofstede, individualism is the degree of preference of
individuals for loosely knit frameworks in which individuals are supposed to take care of
themselves and their immediate families. In simple terms this means the preference for living
and working in collectivist or individual way is high. On the individual index Bangladesh has
scored 20 points (http://geert-hofstede.com/bangladesh.html. Accessed: 3.9.2015 at 14.00)
which means that Bangladesh is a low individualist but a high collectivist country. In Asia
including Bangladesh there is much more reliance on the extended family and the
subsuming of the individual identity within the group. In addition, In Asia, there is a strong
emphasis on “we” over “I.”
Masculinity - Hofstede’s last dimension masculinity expresses gender role in the society.
Masculinity is connected with ambition, the desire to achieve and to earn more, whereas its
opposite, femininity, is more concerned with inter-personal relationships, the environment
and a sense of service. In masculine dimension Bangladesh has scored 55 points
(http://geert-hofstede.com/bangladesh.html. Accessed: 3.9.2015 at 14:30) which indicates
that it is more of a masculine country.
For the purpose of the current study, out of the four dimensions introduced by Hofstede,
only two dimensions have been considered in this study i.e., power distance and
individualism versus collectivism because these two dimensions suit the most in the
discussion of culture and its impact upon decision-making in the context of Bangladesh.
2.1.2. Organizational culture typology
Decision-making within an organisation is a function of the culture of the organisation (Bass,
1996: 159). For the purpose of the current study, organisational culture will be viewed as
the special qualities or behaviour patterns of an organization including the decision-making
patterns. These behaviour patterns are products of the organisation or more specifically its
members’ deep held norms, beliefs, value-systems, and basic assumptions (Kazi, 2009:
101). According to Basi (1998), organisational cultures can be divided into three distinct
groups: paternalistic, bureaucratic, and synergistic organisational cultures.
The Paternalistic Culture - a paternalistic culture is characterised by top-dictated structures
and processes and roles designed to serve certain organisational goals as prescribed by
the boss. The organisational system is essentially the long shadow of the boss’s persona.
All of the four medium-sized case companies which the author has interviewed in
Bangladesh have dominantly exposed this paternalistic culture.
The Bureaucratic culture - a bureaucratic culture is characterised by well-established
structures and processes and formally prescribed position roles designed to serve
organisational goals as prescribed by the top hierarchy. The organisational system is
essentially command and control as directed by the top level. In South Asia and especially
in Bangladesh, organisations are heavily bureaucratic by nature and follow a mechanistic
organisational structure. This mechanistic organisational structure reduces organisational
flexibility in responding to customers’ demand. However, because of the globalisation
process and international trade there has been a slow change process in organisational
culture replacing bureaucratic culture with a more flexible and customer responsive one in
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Bangladesh. This cultural change process is more visible in private sector companies
compared to the public organizations.
Figure 2: Model shows family values, beliefs, norms, and behaviour as principal root of
national and then organisation culture (Kazi, 2009: 272).
Organisational values, attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviour/organisational
culture
National values, attitudes, beliefs, and
values/national culture
Family values, attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviour
The Synergistic culture - the main features of synergistic culture typology are organic
organisation structures and processes, and flexible position roles designed to serve clientcentred organisational goals as prescribed through participation of key shareholders. A
synergistic culture is the common organisational culture typology in Western-Europe, Nordic
Europe, North-America and other developed economies.
In any organization a pure type of organizational culture seldom exists; they are mixed or
overlaid with one culture dominating. In case of Bangladesh, the paternalistic- and the
bureaucratic organizational culture are dominant.
2.1.3. Family culture
Family is the first group in our lives that has a significant effect on our values, attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviour (Giddens, 1984). These values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour
which in aggregate we call culture transmit over time from one generation to the other (see
figure 2). A society’s family structure may have a strong link to differing values, attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviour among its members. Alternatively, cultural differences may be rooted,
among others, into the family structure of a society.
Todd’s (Todd, 1985) typology of family structure1 is an excellent tool for explaining values,
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour in a family. Based on four dimensions i.e., authority-liberty
and equality-inequality, Todd has identified four family types (see figure 3) which have been
discussed below.
Todd’s (Todd, 1985) original typology was developed focusing only on male members of the family.
However, the current study is using Todd’s typology from a gender neutral viewpoint.
1
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Figure 3: Todd’s typology of family (Todd, 1985: 10).
The absolute nuclear family is liberal and in-egalitarian. On reaching adulthood, children are
expected to establish independent households and means of livelihood. No precise
conventions of inheritance of paternal property prevail as this property is viewed as
belonging to one generation that may do as it wishes with it. In such families, children are
socialized to be independent and achievement-oriented.
The egalitarian nuclear family is characterised by the concepts of liberty and equality. While
separation of household is expected, the property is divided equally among the children,
who are brought up to be somewhat independent and achievement-oriented.
The authoritarian family displays the values of inequality and authority. While the ultimate
authority resides with the senior generation, one child is an anointed heir, who is treated as
above the others. The association between the senior generation and the chosen heir is
close, while other members of the junior generation are expected to establish independent
households and means of livelihood.
The community family is characterised by the values of equality and authority. Children live
with their parents in extended families and all next generation members are treated equally
in terms of inheritance rights. The leader of the senior generation has the ultimate authority
in such family.
In high power distance and collectivist/group-oriented society in Bangladesh we can see the
latter two family structures i.e., the authoritarian- and the community family. These two types
of family structures may be instrumental to the formation of Bangladesh’s national as well
as organizational cultures, not disregarding the other probable factors.
2.3. Decision-making
Decision-making is an integral part of managerial function in formal organizational settings.
Human choice is the core element of the decision-making process (see figure 4). According
to Laroche, the decision-making perspective developed, at least partially, to challenge the
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
rational, prescriptive, problem-solving approach to the making of choices in organizations,
building on the idea that the rational model does not provide a realistic description of what
happens in organizations (Laroche, 2002: 254 cited in Kazi, 2009: 150).
Figure 4: Alternatives and choice process (Kazi, 2009: 151).
Chosen
alternative or
decision
A number of
alternatives for
choice
According to Hatch, a rational model consists of the following five steps i.e., (1) define the
problem, (2) generate and evaluate alternatives, (3) select an alternative, (4) implement the
selected alternative and (5) monitor results (Hatch, 1997: 273). Are decision makers in
organizations rational? Answer would probably be a no in most of the cases except a simple
problem. However, to get a more comprehensive answer about rationality in organisational
decision-making one should pay attention to the discourses of Herbert Simon, the 1978
Nobel Laurent in Economics and James March (Kazi, 2009: 160) on bounded rationality.
The concept of bounded rationality was first unveiled in Simon’s doctoral dissertation which
was later published in 1947 as Administrative Behaviour. Further, the concept of bounded
rationality was strengthen by Simon and March in 1958 in their jointly published book
Organisations. March and Simon (1958) argued that the assumptions of human rationality
had to be replaced by a more realistic conception of human capacities. With regard to
decision-making, humans are limited in: (1) the amount of information they can access and
process, (2) the number of possible alternatives they are able to entertain, and (3) their
ability to predict the consequences of their actions. These human limitations create bounds
on the capacity for rational decision-making.
Apart from the rational- and the bounded rationality model, there are other models i.e., the
garbage can-, the incremental- and the political model which also explain how decisions are
made in formal organizations. However, none of the models have acknowledged the
relationships between the culture and the decision-making. Harrison states that, there is a
growing awareness that managerial decision-making is both a product of, and an influence
on, the culture in which it exists. This awareness has resulted in a movement away from the
traditional approaches to the decision-making which relied heavily, if not exclusively, on the
disciplines of economics, mathematics, and statistics (Harrison, 1993: 27 cited in Kazi, 2009:
170). Whether the decision will be made by the manager alone autocratically or whether
there will be wider participation in the decision-making process is dependent upon the
culture of the organisation.
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
2.4. Participation/power sharing in decision-making process
Power is defined as the ability of one individual, function, or division to influence another
individual, function, or division to do something that it would not otherwise have done (Dahl,
1957). Power sharing has been considered as subordinate participation in managerial
decision-making processes. In order to analyse participation in decision-making process in
the case country, the author uses decision-making style typology of Ali (Ali, 1989). Ali’s
typology includes the following styles: autocratic style, pseudo-consultative style,
consultative style, participative style, and delegatory style.
In autocratic style, decisions are made by managers without consultation with subordinates.
This style allows one-way communication – from the top down. Decisions can be made
faster in this style compared with the other styles but subordinates may be highly demotivated. There is no power sharing scope in this style. In pseudo-consultative style,
managers most often consult with the subordinates concerning the issues to be decided
upon, but that does not mean that managers give consideration to subordinates’ ideas and
suggestions. In consultative style, managers most often have prior consultation with their
subordinates on issues to be decided which leads to two-way communication between
managers and subordinates regarding decision alternatives. Because of the consultation,
staff input can improve the quality of decisions. During the field study it was exposed that in
the case companies consultation was possible only if superiors had taken the first initiative.
In Participative style, managers most often share and analyse problems with their
subordinates as a group, evaluate alternatives, and come to a major decision. In delegatory
style, subordinates receive decision-making responsibility from superior. Practice of
delegatory style creates a decentralised decision-making environment where superiors
delegate substantial amount of decision-making authority down to the organisational
hierarchy.
3. Context and Methodology
This study is grounded in a subjective epistemological perspective, where the researcher’s
own observations and interpretations are the keys to acquiring and obtaining knowledge.
Four private sector business companies from the case country form the context of this
study’s empirical information. The industrial sectors represented are the textile sector and
the electronics and electrical sector. All the four sample companies are part of Katz and
Kahn’s productive or economic typology (Katz and Khan, 1966: 112-3). These companies
are engaged in manufacturing goods and thus operate in the secondary sector of the
economy. Altogether fifteen middle- and upper-level managers from the four sample
companies were interviewed.
A standardized open-ended questionnaire was used for primary data collection. The
questionnaire was made up of seven open-ended questions about the three decision areas:
organizational strategy, organizational change and personnel policy. In addition to the seven
decision-related questions, the questionnaire had two more general questions i.e., one
about the interviewee him-/herself and the other one about the company.
Interviews were tape-recorded. However, a few managers declined to have their interviews
tape-recorded, so those were written down on paper. The language of the interview was
English and Bengali. Each interview session lasted from thirty to forty-five minutes. The
interview responses which have been used for analysis, explanation, argumentation, and
reference were transcribed on paper in English from the AV devices.
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
The study is qualitative by nature which is aimed at analysing the impact of culture in
decision-making in the case companies in Bangladesh. The issue of decision-making is not
considered in general but focusing on particularly three types of decisions i.e., organizational
strategy, organizational change and personnel policy. The impact of culture is investigated
in subordinate participation in decision-making process. Consequently, participation is the
key issue of analysis.
4. Culture and participation: a survey of four companies in Bangladesh
The culture of Bangladesh is influenced, many ways, by the other South Asian- as well as
the greater Asian cultures. However, over the centuries Bangladesh has developed a culture
which has given it a separate identity. Among others, the main cultural features of
Bangladesh are huge inequality in resource distribution; strong group-orientation in social
organizations; authoritarianism; emotional orientation; and strong leniency to family.
4.1. National-, organizational- and family culture in Bangladesh
The social structure in Bangladesh is very in-egalitarian by nature, because of inequality in
resource distribution among its citizens and groups. This inequality paves a way for high
power distance in national culture. High power distance has created two separate classes
in Bangladeshi society; ruler and the ruled. In such circumstances, the ruled are the subject
to command and control of the rulers. Loyalty (Kazi, 2014: B4) over creativity is
organizational reality in many cases.
Apart from the high power distance, collectivism is another national cultural feature of
Bangladesh. At the root of this collectivism, there is the family. The identity of a “we” is
stronger over the identity of an “I” in Bangladesh. In collectivist society attachment to family
is inseparable (Ibid). The head of the family who is usually father controls everything and
everyone moves according to his will. There is a mutual exchange system in families in
South Asia including Bangladesh like head of the family takes care of all other members’
well-beings in exchange of loyalty and obedience.
The head of the family even allocate freedom to its members concerning what they can do
and what they cannot do. I would like to brand this situation as “freedom circle” which means
that people in family are free but inside the allocated “freedom circle.” The value system that
people develop at family level also display at their work organisations. Consequently, in
Bangladesh head of the company control and dictate almost everything of the company and
as the sole power source. Regardless, subordinates may enjoy freedom but inside the
allocated “freedom circle.” This paternalistic culture can be seen more in organisations in
the high power distance societies like Bangladesh. There is huge knowledge and expertise
gap between management and working class, consequently, control and command works
better over co-operation and participation – an important context for bureaucratic
organizational culture. At organizational level, there is a top heavy approach in Bangladesh.
As head of the organization, the managing director has immense influence in all
organizational decision-making. Subordinates hardly ever oppose any decision made by the
managing director.
During the field study, it was found that not only the national- and the organizational culture
influence decision-making style in a particular country but also family culture/practices. The
culture which is practiced at family level passes on to the national as well as the
organizational level (see figure 2). In Bangladesh, the authoritarian- and the community
family are commonly seen. Therefore, at the family level authority is concentrated at the
apex or to the hands of the parents who can decide all family issues alone. With some
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
variations, authority and resource-distribution in a typical Bangladeshi family takes place so
that the father hands over the family business to the eldest son, and all other children work
in different areas of the same business under the leadership of the eldest son. Alternatively,
different children head different businesses if the family owns more than a single business.
In male-dominated Bangladeshi society, it is usual that businesses are passed from father
to son, but in rare cases from father to daughter. There is high power distance between and
among family members, where age brings authority and honour.
5. Participation in decision-making: The survey finding
Participation is one of the most misunderstood ideas has emerged from the human relations
approach. It is praised by some, condemned by others, and used with considerable success
by still others (McGregor, 1960: 124). Participation is crucial for making acceptable decision
for all concerned parties. Moreover, participation may lead a better decision. However, one
may not expect wide participation in decision-making in every culture or even in every
organization. There are issues and factors which may influence the degree of subordinate
participation in the decision-making process. The current study shows that the decisions
related to personnel policy are more participation-oriented, whereas corporate strategic
decisions are made more autocratically; and decisions related to organizational change fall
in between the participative and the autocratic orientations (Kazi, 2009: 210). The figure 5
shows how national-, organizational- and family culture influence the choice of modes of
participation or decision making style in the case companies.
Figure 5: Factors favouring autocratic and consultative decision-Making style
in Bangladeshi organizations (modified) (Kazi. 2009: 277).
Autocratic and consultative
decision-making style
Authoritarian
family
High power
distance
Paternalistic
culture
Community family
Collectivism
The Bureaucratic
culture
There are also other issues which limit participation in general in Bangladeshi organizations
such as rigid social stratification, young private sector dominated by few large companies,
gender inequality, and more emphasis on personality over professionalism. All of these
factors have given birth of a management environment where subordinate participation in
decision-making process has very limited place. It is person instead of group which makes
a decision (Ibid: 219). As one MD says, in decision-making, we do not depend on consensus.
We listen to opinion but decisions are made at the upper level and especially by the MD in
all the three areas (Ibid: 211).
In studying participation in managerial decision-making process, the study has shown a
close connection among family, national, and organizational levels of culture, and
established the logic that the root of organizational culture is family culture or the practices
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
at family level (see figure 2). However, there is a cyclical relationship among these three
levels of culture; they reinforce each other so that changes in organizational culture affect
practices at family level, which in turn influence the national culture (see figure 6).
In the long-run, organizations’ dominant decision-making style may be influenced by
changes at the national level such as: (1) Shifts from agriculture to industrialization. (2) Shifts
from industrialization to services. (3) Improvements in the general level of literacy. (4)
Changes in income and social opportunity distribution. (5) Integration into the
internationalization process, and (6) Changes in life-style (Ibid: 46). The mentioned changes
may influence the dominant decision-making style among managers and thereby the mode/s
of participation. Consequently, the dominant decision-making style may change from
autocratic to pseudo- consultative; pseudo-consultative to consultative; consultative to
participative and participative to delegatory. Therefore, decision-making style or mode of
participation may not be constant but contingent.
Figure 6: The relationship among family-, national-, and organizational culture
(Ibid: 281).
Managerial
Decision-making
behaviour/style
Organizational culture
Family
culture/practices
National culture
In the context of Bangladesh, based on the survey of four case companies, the dominant
modes of participation in decision-making process are authoritarian and consultative.
However, in the future, this phenomenon may change and the dominant modes of
participation may be less authoritarian but more consultative and growing leniency towards
participative.
6. Conclusion
Findings show that all the sample companies in Bangladesh ensure participation of their
subordinates in the decision-making process. However, there are differences in the way they
achieve this, which may be considered as differences in degree, rather than completely
different and opposing approaches. It may be concluded that certain factors, including
cultural norms, influence Bangladeshi managers to use autocratic and consultative decisionmaking styles. However, by saying this the study is not denying that they also use other
styles, but autocratic and consultative are the two dominant decision-making styles,
especially in the sample companies.
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
References
Adler, N 1991, International Dimensions of organizational Behavior (2nd ed) Kent Publishing,
Boston.
Ali, A 1989, A comparative study of managerial beliefs about works in the Arab States,
Advances in International Comparative Management 4, pp. 95-112.
Basi, R 1998, “Administrative decision making: a contextual analysis`, Management
Decision”, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 232-240.
Bass, B 1996, Decision-Making and organizational culture in Dent, P et al (eds),
Organizational decision-making under different economies and political conditions,
Amsterdam, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Westenschappen, pp. 159-165.
Dhal, R 1957, The Concept of Power, Behavioural Science, 2, pp. 201-218.
Giddnes, A 1984, The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Handy, C 1988, Understanding Organizations, Penguine Books, London.
Harrison, F 1993, ‘Inter-disciplinary Models of Decision-Making’, Management Decision 31
(8), pp. 27-33.
Hatch, M 1997, Organizational Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives,
Oxford University Press, UK.
Heller, F and Wilpert, B 1981, Competence and Power in Managerial Decision-Making: A
Study of Senior Levels of Organizational in Eight Countries, John Wiley & Sons, UK.
Hofstede, G and Hofstede, G 2005, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw–Hill, New York.
Hofstede, G 1991, Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance
for Survival-software of the mind, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.
Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.), SAGE publications, California.
Holden, N 2002, Cross-Cultural Management: A knowledge Management Perspective,
Prentice Hall, UK
Kakabadse, A 1982, Cultures of the Social Services. Gower Publishing Company Limited,
Hampshire.
Katz, D and Kahn, R 1966, The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York.
Kazi, S 2009, Managerial Decision-Making Behaviour and Impact of Culture, Tampere
University Press, Tampere.
Proceedings of 13th Asian Business Research Conference
26 - 27 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-93-1
Kazi, S 2014, Remember this in Asia (Text translated from Finnish to English), Aamulehti,
5.7.2014, p. B4.
Laroche, H 2002, From Decision to Actions in Organization: Decision-making as a Social
Representation, in Salaman, G (eds) Decision Making for Business: A Reader, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 192-207.
March, J and Simon, H 1958, Organizations, Blackwell Business, Oxford, reprinted in 1993
and 1994.
McGregor, D 1960, The Human Side of Entreprise, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., USA.
Moody, P 1983, Decision Making: Proven Methods for Better Decisions, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
USA.
Todd, E 1985, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems, Basil
Blackwell Ltd., UK.