Several cross-cultural studies have applied a largely institutional approach in order to explain differences among the organisations analysed. A great number of these have used the 'Environment as Institution' approach and thus explained national variations in organisational structures and processes as rooted in the institutional environment in which they are embedded (see eg. Lane, 1989; Whitley, 1992a; 1992b, 1992c). Furthermore, most studies have analysed organisation stmctures and internal features such as education of staff or management-subordinate relations. Only few studies have dealt with organisational strategies or business recipes. In the following, an outline of a selection of cross-cultural studies will be given.
In his study on East Asia, Whitley (1992a) compares business recipes of the Japanese, Korean and Chinese societies. As he defines, 'these business recipes, or systems, are particular ways of organizing, controlling and directing business enterprises that become established as the dominant focus of business organization in different societies. They reflect successful patterns of business behaviour and understandings of how to achieve economic success that are reproduced and reinforced by crucial institutions' (ibid: 125). Whitley's focus of analysis is the nature of firms as economic actors encompassing the skills and activities coordinated by firms, the nature of market organization including market relationships among firms or with suppliers and the nature of internal authoritative coordination and control systems of firms. Whitley shows how variations in these
analysed. He thereby contradicts perceptions of 'universally successful' business recipes across all societies. Indeed, Whitley argues that 'successful forms of business organization develop interdependently with dominant social institutions and therefore differ significantly where these do' (1992a: 122). And he goes further in deriving from this basic assumption that the efficiency of management structures and practices itself is relative, being subject to societal rules and norms of behaviour, As explained in a previous section, Whitley thus opposes the distinction between technical and institutional environments drawn by institutionalists.
Finally, Whitley states that the distinctiveness of societal business recipes depends on the homogeneity of the institutions within the societies analysed. In contrast to the East Asian countries where business recipes seem to differ between but not within societies, in Western Europe and North America, the importance of industry-specific features seems to lead to a different picture. However, as Whitley points out (1992a: 135), 'the variability of industry recipes depends on the differentiation of industrial contexts (...) thus, as many contexts are similar so too can industry recipes be expected to be similar to an extent.' He thus relates the prominence of dominant societal business recipes to the nature of major social institutions such as the state, the educational system or the labour market.
Lane (1989) analyses how manufacturing companies in Britain, France and Germany differ in their organisational structures and processes and how the differences are rooted in 'cultural specificity, expressed in, and reinforced by, different institutional frameworks' (Lane: 292). The interdependence between organisational structures and processes and the institutional environment, however, cannot be depicted in a 'linear cause-effect pattern.' Rather, as institutions continuously influence and reinforce each other, 'it is more appropriate to speak of a circular (pattern) of continual mutual interaction.' In line with Whitley (1992a;
1992b), Lane points to the critical importance of history in explaining national distinctive structures and processes.
Lane argues that despite the superficial similarity between Britain, France and Germany and their common membership of the (then still) European Economic Community a more thorough analysis shows that 'there has occurred relatively little convergence towards a common European type, but that superficially common structural arrangements hide enduringly distinctive national ways of going about and organizing industrial production.' These distinctive ways have historically evolved and are rooted especially in the period of industrialisation. Brtain came to
institutional rules could persist. The long laissez-faire tradition of British policy making has led to an institutionalised system based on individualism and self regulation. Germany, on the contrary, has gone through various major crises and was restructured completely after the Second World War. These national upheavals led to the repeated destruction and new development of institutionalised patterns.
Finally, Lane raises the question of how industrial change can be effected considering the highly complex and distinct national institutional patterns. She elaborates two problems in this context. Firstly, the historical origin of institutions and their taken-for-granted character render change impossible unless the whole institutional fabric is destroyed (ibid: 293). This, however, is difficult as their interdependent character requires an event equal to a 'national crisis' to effect changes. Secondly, the interdependence and complexity of institutional structures render it difficult to decide where to start changing, or as she puts it, 'where to break into the circle' (ibid: 194). Nevertheless, as she reveals, varying examples have shown that the implementation of foreign practices and thus the break through the national patterns can be successful, as happened in the case of the adoption of (modified) Management by Objectives practices in Germany and France.
In a related study on business systems in the manufacturing sectors of Britain and Germany, Lane (1992) shows how the nature of firms and the way they grow, the organisation of the market, the systems of control and coordination and employment and personnel practices are shaped by national institutions such as the state, the financial system and the educational system, among others. Lane points out that the roots of the differences lie in the way the systems evolved historically (see also Lane, 1989). In this context she explains that since World War II, the German state system has been built on democratic principles with an underlying system of consensus. The latter becomes obvious in many ways, through the party system which fosters coalitions, through the non-adversarial relationship between trade unions and employers, or through a comprehensive network connecting industry with trade associations and Chambers of Commerce. Another distinctive feature of the German system has been the stable economic framework provided by the state. In Britain, the state has traditionally been very centralised and since the 1980s, the power of local governments has been undermined even more. The electoral system prevents coalitions and results in policies which potentially can change drastically from one government to the next. Government policies have
Policy (see also Lane, 1989). The legitimacy of government policies is not very high as their decisions do not necessarily have to be based on a majority vote or agreed upon with other parties, such as trade unions and the like. Overall, this leads to a fairly unstable environment for businesses which has resulted in firms strongly believing in a 'hands-off policy.
Lane arrives at the conclusion that German, relative to British, firms in the manufacturing sector, benefit from an institutional context in which capital, personnel and technical know-how is easily accessible and the productive combination of these factors is encouraged. British firms, on the contrary, are overall more institutionally isolated. In Lane's eyes, the comparison of Britain and Germany underpins clearly the increasingly held notion that institutional frameworks can be a determining factor regarding the competitive advantage or disadvantage of an organisation, and thus has to be regarded as an additional factor of production *.
In a comparative study of British, French and West German manufacturing units, Maurice, Sorge and Warner (1980) use what they name a 'societal effect' approach. In contrast to these theories they posit that organisational structures and processes are interdependent with distinct societal factors. The distinction between the environment and the organisation, as undertaken in most comparative studies, has to be abandoned as intraorganisational features are socially constituted. The authors' data is structured into three different areas - the configuration of the organisation, including how the labour force is divided into categories and how these are numerically related, the work structuring and organisation and the qualification and career systems. Maurice et al. relate differences between these variables in the contexts analysed to societal features, or the 'macro-area' (p. 80). In a later study, Sorge and Warner (1986) develop the societal-effect approach further constructing a comprehensive theoretical framework of analysis. With the latter, they explain differences between manufacturing organisations in Britain and West Germany. Their focus of analysis are the respective factory organisations, the education and training practices and industrial relations. Sorge and Warner view the distinct features of the factories analysed as part of a wider social network of interdependent factors: '(...) there appears to be a close interaction between factors
* Although, at the moment, the question is whether the German institutional framework still leads to a comparative advantage. It seems that at the current times of increasing international
in different spheres of society which follows a logic upon which the identity of a particular society is built' (p. 184). This societal logic is characterised by a high degree of stability, so that 'differences (between the countries) may change over time, but they will not be diminished.'
The societal effect-approach differs from those applied by Lane and Whitley in that all factors are assumed to be interdependent. Whereas Lane and Whitley do focus on the importance of a few, distinct institutions and compare the vaiying influences of these on organisations among societies, the concept of Maurice and his colleagues is much wider and more intertwined.