Organisational and national culture has been subject to much research in recent years. Key writers in the field include Hofstede, Schein, and Johnson and Scholes.

The ideal organisational culture for fostering networking is one that is open and flexible, so that communications can be effective and connectivity strong. Management must allow individuals to be sufficiently empowered to talk to others and to make decisions, even if this sometimes means mistakes will happen. Setting some boundaries to the level and scope of decisions, proper resourcing, and full training and support of individuals should reduce any risks. According to Hastings (1993) certain aspects of culture need to exist in order to engender successful international networking. A selection of these is given in box 4.

It is worth spending a little time in examining the implications of some of these cultural issues. The first four listed aspects relate to information, closely related to what tends to be known as ‘knowledge management’. Information is sometimes regarded as a key source of power, what Charles Handy (1976) calls ‘expert power’, with an assumption that power is desirable. Hastings’ approach is that the power to achieve something with a partner, or range of partners, is likely to be more beneficial to a larger group of people. This creates a win/ win situation, which seems to be particularly appropriate for those working for the public good, including the guidance community and others within the public and the voluntary sectors. Hastings does warn that sometimes, larger networks end up with ‘over-communications’, where endless information bulletins, meetings, notes and memos are circulated! This is something which sounds very familiar to those working in large organisations or networks, but Hastings argues is nevertheless a good thing for networks, and one that is certainly preferable to limiting information to an exclusive elite.

The other aspects listed (and there are more on page 9 of the book, for those interested in further reading on the topic) relate to an openness in the organisation, with a willingness to enjoy diversity and welcome the opportunities and learning that arise through partnership working. Individuals involved in networking activities need to be able to feel comfortable and confident in breaking down boundaries and opening up communications. In contrast, a more traditional, closed organisational culture would prove a formidable barrier to international networking. Where permission has to constantly be sought or there is a reluctance to share information, then networking of any kind is unlikely to be encouraged.

International cultures can also create barriers, unless the individuals involved in the networking seek to understand and appreciate national differences. The current HSBC Bank advertisements keep us informed about some of these! Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions, following research across 50 countries. The dimensions are referred to as:

• Power distance
• Individualism/ collectivism
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Masculinity/ femininity

Power-distance represents the social distance between people of different rank or position. For example, in countries with a high power-distance score (e.g., Malaysia, Panama) subordinates are unlikely to question superiors and a more directive management style is prevalent. A low power distance score (e.g. Austria, Denmark) suggests a more collaborative style, with participative management approaches.

Individualism/ collectivism reflects “the extent to which an individual relies on a group (a collectivist approach) or takes the initiative in making decisions, solving problems and engaging in productive activity” (Brooks, p273). The American culture tends to be highly individualistic, in contrast to Asian, more collective cultures. It needs to be borne in mind that Hofstede’s major work was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s, and based on the American multinational corporation IBM, although subsequent research has tended to confirm his findings. However, in the previous Soviet states (not included in Hofstede’s sample), for example, there has been a distinct move from the collective to the individual, with implications at both national and individual levels. Hastings maintains that in networking it is important not to be carried away by an ‘either/ or’ mentality, but to work towards a ‘both/ and’ position, so that both individualism and collectivism can be comfortable side by side.

Uncertainty avoidance reflects people’s attitudes to ambiguity, or a preference for rules and direction. Hofstede found Greeks more likely to prefer specific direction, in contrast to the Swedes, who were happy with flexibility, risk and ambiguity. In networking, such partners would need to be clear about each others’ preferences in ways of working.

The fourth dimension of masculinity/ femininity is centred around Hofstede’s classification of personal attributes. Masculinity includes assertiveness, competitiveness and results-orientation, whilst feminine attributes include co-operation and empathy. Hofstede’s results labelled Japan as the most ‘masculine’ culture, with Norway the most ‘feminine’. Handy (1994) suggests that feminine attributes are those needed at individual and organisational level in the 21st century.

Such dimensions suggest that there might be natural clusters of partners in terms of similarity (Denmark, Sweden, USA, UK are given as an example). However, there is then the danger of failing to break down other barriers and missing opportunities to build networks with, and learn from nations with very marked differences in style.