Introduction

The objective of this chapter is to specifically include national and regional factors that will be influential in shaping organisational cultures, but which may be missed if the focus is restricted to national cultural dimensions.

The need to take a holistic view of the political, legislative and social environment rather than restricting consideration to national cultural dimensions can be illustrated by looking at the example of Estonia, one of the Baltic states. Estonia has a long history of occupation by successive foreign powers (Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Russia), and for much of the twentieth century (1940–1990) was part of the Soviet Union (Raun, 2001). According to Hofstede’s dimensions, Estonia’s profile is very similar to that of Finland (‘Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’). A study of managerial values, however, found significant differences between these two countries (Alas et al., 2006).

In terms of industrial development, in relationship to other newly independent countries in Eastern and Central Europe, Estonia has been categorised as a high level medium adaptor (Hyder & Abraha, 2008: 293). These authors comment that Estonia is culturally closer to Sweden and Finland because of historical business and social links, and also that industry is doing well in terms of privatisation, adaptation and modernisation.

In 2004, Estonia became a member of the European Union. Regionally it is referred to as one of the Baltic states, thus is grouped with Latvia and Lithuania. Legislation relating to information management in Estonia appears to be accorded a high priority as archival and legal deposit legislation has been updated in recent years (Euronomos: European Archival Information Online, 2009; Suneksemplari Seadus, 2009). Given the amount of work required as a consequence of legislative changes following independence in 1991, the fact that these acts have received attention indicates a high importance accorded to these areas. Hong Kong was in a comparable situation in terms of the magnitude of change as the territory was handed back to China from Britain, but as will be seen later in this chapter the legislation enacted in the pre-handover period showed that information management concerns were not a priority.

Similarly, the existence and status of public policy relating to information management will vary according to country, reflecting different levels and areas of concern. Estonia provides an example of a state where explicit and well-documented policy has been developed relating to cultural heritage, both analogue and digital (Ministry of Culture, 2008). Preservation of that heritage is the focus of much attention and activity, as is evidenced by the ‘Red Book’ strategy (Konsa and Reimo, 2009). Public policy relating to the development of an information society post-independence is explored in depth by Runnel et al. (2009).

This brief snapshot of a country has used Estonia as an example to show the complex web resulting from, and continuing to be shaped by, historical and current relationships. All of these relationships will have some degree of influence over the way in which information is managed in organisations in specific countries.

Continuing our examination of the context that organisations are situated within, any consideration of their culture has to take into account the laws and regulations within which they operate. This chapter begins with consideration of the importance of language and technological infrastructure issues. It then provides an overview of the regulatory environment in general terms, and then considers three main areas in more detail: privacy, copyright and freedom of information legislation. These three are of critical importance to information management, and although the concepts are internationally applicable the manifestations of particular legislation varies greatly. Indeed, some researchers have suggested that national cultural characteristics are influential in shaping this environment. I will also consider the extent to which employees are aware of and accept the provisions of this legislation, as this is another important factor to take into account in assessing organisational culture.

Language

Language is a key factor that will need to be taken into account when considering organisational culture and the need to manage information. It is of course inextricably linked with culture, but it is worth singling out for separate discussion in order to emphasise information management consequences which may arise due to the use of different languages, and because of the implications of the use of different character sets for digital accessibility and sustainability issues.

Of particular interest are the differences between high and low context languages, which has been associated with variations in information-seeking behaviour (discussed earlier in Chapter 2). Research into high and low context differences appears to be largely limited to exploring Asian and Western comparisons (see for instance Li-Jun Ji et al., 2009) whereas there is considerable difference to be found even among European languages in the degree of context required. There is undoubtedly a need for much further investigation in this area, which has the potential to be very significant for information management.

Particular problems can be associated with languages based on non-Latin script. The international standard for character encoding (ISO 8859) for instance does not even include Chinese characters because of their complexity. Nevertheless, the use of standards for encoding to take into account diacritical elements in different languages is enormously important if there are aspirations to enable equal access to people speaking those languages. The Norwegian government has announced that the character sets used by public sector organisations have to conform to UTF8. This is to make sure that characters in Norway’s minority language, Sami, and others can be displayed correctly.¹

Requirements to use more than one language, and willingness to do so, will certainly influence information management concerns. Multilingual websites, for instance, dramatically increase possibilities to access information beyond national and linguistic boundaries. However, the complexity involved in ensuring that versions are up-to-date and translations are authoritative cannot be underestimated.

The small country of Estonia provides some insight into the defining nature of language, and the consequences of this for information management. Estonia’s language policy is said to illustrate the importance of language in defining national identity (Rannut, 2004). The country’s national awakening in the late nineteenth century was preceded by a steady increase in publications in Estonian and marked by the standardisation of a new writing system and acceptance of the Northern dialect as the national language (Raun, 2001). Towards the end of the Soviet occupation of Estonia in the 1980s, the status of the Estonian language was seen as a critical characteristic essential for the survival of the nation and its culture (Raun, 2001: 235). Changing relationships with other powers has influenced choices relating to other languages; most recently, English has become the preferred second language to be taught in schools. A consequence of this will be that direct access to primary information sources relating to the recent past will be more problematic if future Estonian citizens do not have the appropriate linguistic skills.

Regional technological infrastructure

The capability and capacity of the organisation’s internal information technology systems will of course impact on the nature of information management services. But it is important to take a step back and consider the broader environmental context, because this dictates the opportunities and constraints that are the parameters for internal development. In addition, regional capabilities will influence the extent to which employees are restricted to working within organisational boundaries, their acceptance of organisational limitations and/or need to develop alternative solutions.

Today’s social networking, or Web 2.0, environment offers a huge range of possibilities for alternative ways of working. When it is no longer necessary to be in a designated physical space in order to work, a whole range of issues that may make life much more complicated for information managers arise. People are able to log into their work systems such as e-mail and conduct business from remote locations. Voice-over-internet protocol software such as Skype enable realtime global communication. Computing in the Cloud, using cyberspace as a vast open-plan office and storage repository opens up possibilities for collaborative working alongside issues that are only now emerging, such as ownership and responsibility for data.

In addition, portable storage devices enable employees to carry vast amounts of data off work premises, and also of course raise huge risks in terms of loss and unauthorised access to information.

Underlying people’s ability to take advantage of these features is the need for adequate equipment, power and access to information technology. There will of course be huge contrasts in the facilities available in western developed countries from those in third world and developing countries, on the other side of the digital divide. But some features of the Web 2.0 environment may enable digital working in ways not previously possible in countries without a robust technological infrastructure. Contrasts are also apparent among countries in the developed world, largely due to telecommunications policy and the associated infrastructure.

Free wireless internet makes a huge difference to the extent to which the flexibility of communication will be taken advantage of, and incorporated into working outside the bricks and mortar of traditional organisational boundaries.

Also, of course, it is important to bear in mind that if the regional technological infrastructure is one which facilitates the use of these new tools and features, organisational policy should reflect this reality. Otherwise the result may well be sabotage of internal information management systems. Whether this sabotage is intentional or accidental, the result will be the same as people develop their own workarounds.

I encountered an instance of the complexity of this new environment when consulting for a public sector organisation based on one of the island nations of the South Pacific. Internet bandwidth was limited, and an attempt to develop an online document repository that could be accessed remotely failed because download times were excessive. The organisation focused on developing approaches to restrict internet usage where possible, in order to make better use of the bandwidth that was available.

One of the results of this strategy was to ban the use of Skype, as this was viewed as software which presented an excessive drain on bandwidth. Furthermore, Skype was perceived as a tool that was used for social, rather than work purposes. However, employees had developed their own communication practices as an integral feature supporting and facilitating their work, and Skype played a central role.

The functions of this organisation meant that employees travelled a great deal, largely to Pacific island nations that were even more remote. One of the primary purposes of travel was to take part in meetings which involved high-level negotiation of policy spanning different jurisdictions. Skype was used wherever possible as a quick and easy way of checking back with colleagues and managers, especially to ensure that any decisions or positions taken out of the office were in keeping with home organisational policy. When Skype could no longer be used, employees developed their own workaround. This, in effect, consisted of making sure that the organisation’s information could be accessed externally. Staff established their own personal e-mail accounts in the cloud, for instance setting up hotmail or gmail accounts. Then before travelling, they would e-mail themselves copious quantities of documents to make sure they could have them to hand if needed. This was in addition to using portable memory devices such as USB sticks, as people had found from experience that these small devices could easily be lost or left in someone else’s computer. All in all, it was no understatement to say that the organisation’s most important information resources were exposed to significant risks, largely due to insufficient attention being paid to understanding how information technology could be used to support work practices.

The regional technological infrastructure plays such a key role in shaping and influencing information management practices. It must be taken into account when developing policies, and that involves keeping up to date with the latest social networking tools and finding out how they are used within organisations. It is in many ways much easier to take a draconian approach to limiting the use of such tools, or banning the use of portable memory sticks, but the end result of such actions is highly unlikely to be beneficial to organisational information management.

Overview of the regulatory environment

As I have already noted, organisations do not exist in isolation. They are a microcosm of the environment in which they are situated, and will reflect the standards and norms of that environment, as embodied by the broader legislative framework. The functions of the organisation are a key factor in determining which legislation is applicable. For instance, information management in a hospital setting will be subject to rules and regulations regarding the prescription of drugs, the confidentiality of details relating to a patient’s disease and its treatment, and the need for informed consent. Whether an organisation is in the private or public sector is also significant, as different legislation is likely to apply.

The type of legislation will vary according to the political structure of the country concerned, and any regional alliances. So, for countries such as Germany, Australia and the United States, which have a federal structure, there may be legislation at both state and national level. Membership of the country in international alliances such as the European Union will also have implications for legislation, introducing another layer of complexity.

It is also important to acknowledge the existence of standards which establish codes for best practice. Standards may be applicable internationally, nationally or be industry or sector specific. The best known standards are likely to be those that are international developed by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). ISO is a nongovernmental organisation made up of a network of 145 national standards bodies. It promotes the development of standards in order to facilitate the international exchange of goods and services, and develop international collaborative activity. Standards are used internationally in order to:

(International Organisation for Standardisation, 2010)

An ISO standard is the result of negotiation and agreement between national member bodies. The ISO website sets out the procedure for drafting and creating a standard. Development work is carried out by Technical Committees (TC) and their related Sub-Committees (SC), and is usually a six-stage process.

As I pointed out in Chapter 2, standards are increasingly becoming an important feature influencing information management, particularly in records management and electronic recordkeeping systems. Standards may also, of course, be applicable to the functions of the organisation, so it is essential that these are identified and any implications for information management taken into account when developing programmes and services.

The same comment also applies to legislation, of course. In this chapter I will focus on the features that are particularly important to information management across a wide range of sectors. Information managers will most definitely also need to ensure they are cognisant of the legislation that is applicable to the functions of their organisations, and be aware of any ramifications for their responsibilities. But that is beyond the scope of this book, so the remainder of this chapter will focus only on those areas which will have wide applicability for organisations in different sectors.

Privacy

Privacy requirements relate to the need to protect personal information about oneself or about other people. The extent to which privacy is protected by legislation varies from country to country. Similarly, the extent to which relevant laws or standards are recognised and adhered to by individuals will also vary greatly according to country.

When organisations operated on a very localised basis, simply becoming aware of the norms of that particular jurisdiction and then making sure that they were followed could be the primary concern for information managers. However, given the cross-border and global reach of today’s information systems, the glorious complexity of the ranges of attitudes towards privacy, and corresponding variations in legislation, are very relevant to the work of information managers.

In fact, these variations in attitude are also apparent beyond formal organisational e-commerce systems, and are impacting on social networking spaces. The availability of personal information on Facebook and YouTube has prompted legal action from countries where there is a greater sensitivity to the need to protect personal information from exposure unauthorised by the person involved.²

Freedom of information

Freedom of information refers to the rules that guarantee access by citizens to the information held by governments. Once again, there are a wide range of different attitudes towards freedom of information, which can have the end effect of not actually realising the intent of legislation. This is a very important feature to be aware of for information managers working in organisations such as government departments and local authorities that are subject to freedom of information laws.

A characteristic I noted in the previous chapter in connection with low power distance was ‘openness with information’. The implication of this is that in countries where Hofstede found a low ranking on the power distance dimension, there is a likelihood that people will be more predisposed to sharing information rather than keeping it secret. However, this does not seem to fit with the picture of attitudes to freedom of information legislation in Britain.

Britain is one of the last Western democracies to implement freedom of information legislation. This reluctance to legislate in favour of open government has also been noted in countries that were former British colonies. Hong Kong, for instance, still does not have any freedom of information legislation.

As noted above, a number of laws relating to information management were introduced in Hong Kong just prior to handover of the territory to the People’s Republic of China. Freedom of information, however, was not addressed. In fact, Britain played a key role in preventing its introduction.

In Jonathan Dimbleby’s account of the handover period in Hong Kong, specific mention is made of the Governor (Chris Patten) blocking attempts to introduce freedom of information legislation in Hong Kong, although reasons for this are not specified (Dimbleby, 1998: 251).

British archival academics Andrew Flinn and Harriet Jones have compiled a provocative collection of papers which explores whether a legislative mandate to access information has a negative impact on those creating records (Flinn & Jones, 2009). In other words, does the knowledge that their actions will be subject to public scrutiny inhibit public servants from formally recording discussion, debate and decisions. Sadly, there appears to be some evidence for this view from commentators around the world (Hannant, 2009; Schewe, 2009) notably including Sweden, which has a long and distinguished tradition of allowing public access to official information dating back to the eighteenth century (Östber & Eriksson, 2009). The Dutch contributor to this volume rejects this pessimistic view, however, and points to the introduction of desktop computing as the more significant factor causing ‘empty archives’ (De Graaff, 2009).

The situation in Britain now, as regards freedom of information from an information management perspective, is very intriguing. When the legislation was finally enacted, it was accompanied by a code of practice relating to records management. The code has the very best of intentions and certainly emphasises the need for effective records management if the aims of freedom of information legislation are to be realised:

By accompanying the legislation with clear guidance as to the essential information management infrastructure required, it could be assumed that Britain would avoid the situation in New Zealand mentioned in the previous chapter. New Zealand can be regarded as an early adopter of freedom of information among Anglophone countries as this legislation was introduced in 1982, replacing the existing Official Secrets Act. However, there was minimal recognition of the need for records management services in order to effectively respond to requests for official information. On the contrary, this period of time can be characterised as a time of crisis for records management, as registries were dispersed and records management positions lost in so many government departments (Oliver & Kurmo, 2010).

However, the situation in Britain today indicates that even if there had been high-level recognition of the need for records management to support freedom of information requirements, it still might not have had the desired result. Elizabeth Shepherd and colleagues have conducted research exploring the impact of freedom of information legislation in local authorities in Britain. They conclude that, despite the rhetoric, records management still may not be regarded as particularly important in these organisations:

I cannot escape from the view that even though legislation might be in place, even though explicit codes of practice might be issued, people’s attitudes and values to information will still be instrumental in influencing successful information management. It is of enormous importance for records managers in particular to recognise this, and not to assume that the intent and purpose of freedom of information legislation will be upheld if appropriate policy is developed. On the contrary, if there is a fundamental resistance to freedom of information ideals and aspirations, there may well be disastrous consequences for organisational and even national memories. Much more research is needed to answer the ‘empty archives’ question posed by Flinn and Jones. In the meantime, however, awareness of this potential problem area will assist information managers to be particularly vigilant and emphasise the importance of creating and maintaining full and accurate records.

Another feature worthy of consideration is maintaining an openness as regards the format and media of those records. If, as Bob De Graaff suggests, technology is a prime influencing factor, perhaps records managers should be considering alternative ways in which records should be created, such as audio and video recordings. This of course would in turn present many challenges in terms of managing this information so that it was retrievable and could be stored for long periods of time. The consequences of continuing with current practice, regardless of whether or not desired outcomes are achieved, does not seem to be an acceptable option.

Copyright

Copyright legislation can be defined as the rights of ownership accorded to authors and creators of information. These rights govern the extent to which copying and distribution of information can take place. The protection of copyright lasts for a certain period of time, after which the information object passes into the public domain. The period of time varies from country to country, as does the starting point for the applicability of relevant legislation, and the range of formats that it is applied to.

The digital environment has vastly complicated requirements relating to copyright as reproduction, copying, extracting portions of a work to incorporate into new work become easier and easier. Mash-ups, the compilation of bits and pieces of different information types (such as sound, image, graphics as well as text) to make a new digital information resource does not require expensive equipment or even necessarily specialist expertise. The potential therefore for copying and profiting from someone else’s original work without acknowledgement is indeed great.

This situation creates obligations for information managers to ensure that organisational resources are used appropriately. The first step of course is to make sure that you are familiar with requirements in order to provide appropriate guidance. This is no small task, as copyright more than any other area of legislation impacting on information management seems to be beset by myths and legends rather than a clear grasp of facts. This reflects the complexity of the environment and the high profile accorded to breaches of copyright in some countries.

Once again, cultural considerations are likely to result in different attitudes towards the ownership of information. Tim Padfield, a British copyright expert specialising in matters relating to unpublished materials, identifies two distinct approaches to copyright legislation. On the one hand is the British approach, also exported to the USA and commonwealth countries, which regards copyright as an economic property right. On the other hand, most other European countries take an approach which emphasises the protection of the author’s personality, as expressed in the work (Padfield, 2010). Harmonisation of British copyright law with European Union legislation has taken place to ensure consistency of approach. However, given the quite different philosophical perspectives as regards the motivation for protection, it seems that people’s instinctual knowledge as to what copying behaviours are permitted is likely to vary considerably according to country.

Furthermore, Padfield notes that despite the existence of international conventions (such as that administered by the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organisation) and the European directives, there are not only still considerable variations in legislative requirements within Europe, but also far more variations in countries outside Europe. He points in particular to variations in the definition of the copyright owner, which means that ‘quite different people qualify as owners of copyright in the same work in different countries’ (Padfield, 2010: 12).

All this adds up to the need to be aware that common understanding of copyright regulations, the motivation for copyright protection and the extent to which restrictions apply will vary widely among staff in organisations. Copyright infringements in the workplace therefore cannot be assumed to be of malicious intent, especially if there is not a high degree of public awareness of the need to protect the rights of information owners and when adequate guidance has not been provided by information managers.

Further complicating factors are the steps taken by copyright owners to protect their property, in the form of digital rights management. Digital rights management is the implementation of controls to guard against unauthorised use or copying. This technology may hamper preservation efforts if it is attempted, for instance, to migrate content to a more stable or long-lasting format. For instance, a library cannot assume ownership of the content of digital media as it may not be accessible in the future because of technological obsolescence.

It is not only essential, therefore, to become familiar with copyright regulations which exist in your jurisdiction, but also to maintain awareness of international developments. These may well influence the long-term availability of digital information resources that you may regard as being owned by your organisation, but which in fact may only be temporarily accessible. The debate surrounding the ownership of information will be ongoing, and solutions that emerge are unlikely to be universally applicable.

Conclusion

This chapter has been very wide ranging, covering what I have termed the structural environment in which organisations operate. The characteristics of the languages that are used, whether information needs to be made available in more than one language, and preferences for low or high context communication will all impact on information management. The technological capabilities and capacity of the region in which the organisation is situated and does business with have to be taken into account when developing information management policies and procedures within the organisation. Finally, the features of the regulatory environment, and whether staff are aware of their obligations let alone willing to follow them are essential characteristics which frame and shape organisational cultures. The following chapter moves on to consider the next layer of the organisational culture onion: occupational culture.

References