Cross-Cultural Analysis
Introduction
Accordingly, significant rapid changes are continuously happening in the international market. With these changes, the only way for the organizations to adapt and adjust is to consider management models and approaches different from the traditional practices. Specified affective aspects such as increasing global competition as well as rapid technological change urged most companies to become more inclined with global operations and to managers to be transferred to manage employees with diverse cultures (Aaker, 2001).
It can be said that culture is an essential aspects in comprehending a company, because in order for the company to operate efficiently, the must for some extent have a general set of assumptions, norms and belief. Because understanding the context of culture is said to help organisations to be aware of how employees perceived about the company and to determine how different attitudes, beliefs, and values affect the workplaces and implicate the work of the manager (Bennett, Aston & Colquhoun, 2000). Comprehending and assessing the national culture and organizational culture can mean the difference between the success and failure of a manager in handling diverse employees. It can be said that cultural differences posts some of the issue and opportunities for a manager, specifically Hong Kong manager. Primarily, the main goal of this paper is to understand different theories of cross-cultural management. In addition, this paper will also discuss how this cross-cultural diversity affects Hong Kong managers.
Cross-Cultural Management Theories
Aforementioned, one of the elements which must be given attention by the management of the company is the cultural aspects, specifically if the company or the manager is managing different or diverse cultures. There are various cross-cultural management theories that have been provided by different theorists. In this paper, the cross-cultural management theories that will be analysed include that of Edward T. Hall and Mildred Hall, and Geert Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars.
It was stated by Hall and Hall (1973) that the most essential factors for having a successful cross-cultural management system is to consider an efficient cultural communication. Herein, the management or the manager of the company must make it sure that there are open avenues for people to communicate efficiently. Hall & Hall (1976) has been able to identify two categories of culture which have an impact on business operations and organizational performances. Such categories include the High Context Culture and the low context culture. High Context categories are regarded to have a very high established homogenous view in terms of religious values, nationality and beliefs and attitudes (Hall & Hall, 1976). This form of culture can be easily recognized among Arab countries and Japanese style of management. In this regard, the communication aspects are given consideration such as gestures and body language. On one hand, the low context culture notes that the concept of communication is more identified in formal written records like what can be seen in the United Kingdom and United States.
The next theorist and cultural theory that will be considered is that of the cross-cultural management theory of Geert Hofstede. According to this theory, culture can be classified through different dimensions at a national level (Hofstede, 1991). Such dimensions include power distance, masculinity-femininity, individual collectivism, long-term versus short-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance.
Ø Large versus small power distance. it is noted that the large power distance is the extent to which the employees or staffs or the members of the society admits that power in organisations and companies is distributed unequally; while small power distance is the notion in which members of a society or employees or staffs accept that power is distributed fairly (Hofstede, 1991).
Ø Strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance. This aspect means that strong uncertainty avoidance addresses that the degree to which the employees feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, which leads them to support beliefs that promises certainty and to sustain institutions protecting conformity; while the weak uncertainty avoidance is the level in which employees tend to be relatively tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity and needs autonomy and lower structure (Hofstede, 1991; Rodriguez, 1995).
Ø Individualism versus collectivism. The individualism aspect is known to be the preference for a loosely knit social model in society; whereas collectivism referred to a preference for a tightly knit social model.
Ø Masculinity versus femininity. The context of masculinity refers to the preference for fulfillment, heroism, fierceness, forcefulness, and material success; whereas the notion of femininity referred to a preference for modesty, relationships, nurturing and caring for the weak and the quality of life.
It can be said that such cultural dimensions can assist the manager’s approach to managing diverse culture (Hofstede, 1980). In addition, this can also help management strategies easier to be implemented (Hofstede, 1980).
The next theory to be considered for analysing cross-cultural management is the theory established or formulated by Fons Trompenaars. As noted by Trompenaars (1997), there are seven dimensions of culture which is relevant to the relationships with employees or personnels in an organization. These seven dimensions are Individualism vs. Collectivism (communitarians), Universalism vs. Particularism, Specific vs. Diffuse, Neutral vs. Emotional, Linear vs. Circular and internal vs. external control and Achievement vs. Ascription, Such dimensions are attributed as the factors which can be useful for managing cultural diversities.
Implications to Hong Kong Manager
As Burack, et al (1994) pointed out, management; specifically managers had transformed it as more emphasis is stressed on commitment and control. Quality, competence, and flexibility among the employees had efficiently replaced quantity of task accomplished and dumb obedience. Furthermore, the objectives of the management become concentrated on the adoption of modernization, quality and cost reduction. As management, specifically managers requires and demands more from their employees, work is then intensified resulting to less slacking of the management.
Aside from globalization, changes in the role of the managers have occurred due to cross-national dissimilarities. The diversities among nations are likely to develop practices that are different from other countries (Gooderham, Nordhaug & Ringdal, 1999). In reality, management’ practices are subject to distinctive sets of national rules as well as sensitive analysis of labor unions whose strength and thoughts towards management differ. Thus, this concept is contrary to the idea of HRM as a high managerial autonomy (Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, 1993; Dessler, 1997).
Based on the analysis of different theories provides above, it can be said that cultural diversities or differences can have a direct impact or implications on specific manager. For example, Hong Kong managers who are assigned with culturally diverse employees should ensure that they are able to adhere to the needs of the employees to be managers.
Cultural differences among nations are interestingly predominant due to varying backgrounds, origins, traditions, and lifestyles. As culture influences much of people’s way of life, their principles, ideas, beliefs and personal character suggest their cultural background. Oftentimes cultural differences have been a subject of conflict among individuals and aspects which should be given emphasis by Hong Kong managers, in a culturally diverse organisation. Thus, open-mindedness and respect for each others diversity are necessary. For instance, Hong Kong managers who are assigned in a United States company should be able to have the ability to take responsibilities of the cultural differences.
One distinct characteristic among Hong Kong managers is their tendency to do things in a hurry. In their managerial processes, the environment appears to be filled with pressure and urgency. Thus, most perceived Hong Kong managers as efficient thinkers and workers especially when placed under stress. Americans on the other hand usually take their time especially in making management decisions. Thomas (2002) also pointed out the difference of these two cultures when it comes to leadership and authority. Westerners for instance, tend to be straightforward and focused on their tasks. Alternatively, Hong Kong managers are more concerned on the delegation of various tasks. As Chinese/ Hong Kong culture gives value to organizational hierarchy, Chinese bosses tend to be all-powerful. In turn, subordinates will just have to wait for their bosses’ instructions. This heavy dependence on bosses and less resourcefulness may seem to be an attitude perceived by Westerners as staying away from responsibility.
In terms of cultural orientation, it can be said that the United States is a highly masculine-oriented and individualistic country. Herein, their managers emphasise on individual action and self-interest. On one hand Hong Kong is also a masculine-oriented culture because of the influences of Western culture in the nation. In terms of relationship among people, it can be said that the US culture are less relationship-oriented. Employee relationships on American leaders are directed to maximum achievement of goals and disregard personal attributes of employees. For American leaders, results should benefit the whole organisation while Hong Kong culture leaders, results should benefit both the organisation and the individual. Hong Kong culture is more are more relationship-oriented as they show outstanding concern on personal lives of their staff members. Trust is extremely dominant among Hong Kong leaders. Since relationship is governed by respect, guidance, and consultation, Hong Kong management value equality and group harmony.
Relationships in Hong Kong business play a significant role. The Hong Kong managers create business relations in a different manner as compared to their western counterparts. This is mainly because, mutual relations, gift-exchanging and doing favours are considered important elements that strengthen Chinese business relations; this is unlike the Western environment where business relations are not exactly based on emotions and friendships. Furthermore, the Hong Kong has a strong affiliation towards social responsibilities. Thus, it is important for the firm to do social provisions not only to the employees but to the community as well. This example then stresses the need for foreign investors to be aware of various cultural differences.
The managers of Hong Kong should consider these cultural and national differences if they want to have a successful career in the US market. In addition, cultural differences affect how the manager will manage the American employees considering that the two have very diverse or different cultures.
Recommendation
Consequently, culture is something that is hard to customize and change. Thus, rather than cause conflict about cultural differences, it is probably wise to accept and respect them. Instead of identifying this issue as a problem, cultural differences should be learned and appreciated, specifically by the managers who are assigned to work in a diverse culture. This is because a nation’s cultural difference is what makes it special, unique, and distinct.
If the Hong Kong managers will be assigned with a United State’s or American’s company, the Hong Kong manager must see to it that they are able to sustain their cultural aspect which makes them unique from each other. Understanding the culture of Americans, enable the managers to know which leadership styles to be used when assigned to US companies.
It can be noted that that the process of becoming an effective international manager is to sustain the growth and maintain the relationships of people within the company despite their individual differences. In this regard, the managers who will work on American company should set a common vision and goal and allow their staffs to effectively accomplish their tasks, both in individual and collective level to comply with the cultural situation of each nation.
The cultural dimension is noted to be more strategic and intangible in nature than the technical one. Cultural factors explain the notion regarding the importance of the organisational and individual culture. This dimension, involves myths, rituals, games and symbols which are relevant to how the company strategise their operations. Because of the common behaviour, an internal incorporation within the company is enhanced. In this sense, all cultural learning indicates the original values of each staff and their sense of what ought to be as different and unique from what is.
Conclusion
Throughout the years, different theorists had been able to recognize and identify the significant role of culture in management. The interest for these business aspects had been reviewed in various manners. Among the helpful theories about national culture and cultural dimensions are those of Hall, Hofstede, and Trompenaars. The interests of the study of culture have been raised because of the constant evolution of such priorities that presently emphasize on work motivation as well as intellectual development of different employees.
Under theoretical aspects, theorists have been able to illustrate the significant role of the managers and employees on the development of an effective organizational culture. In this regard, the leadership skills of the manager, in this case, Hong Kong managers, and the insights of the employees should have an equal weight in line with cultural dynamics.
By and large, it can be said that in order for the Hong Kong managers to manage employees in American setting, the manager should be able to know the employees behaviour and know which cultural management approach to be used.
Reference
Aaker, D. A. (2001). Strategic market management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bennett, R., Aston, A., and Colquhoun, (2000), “Cross-cultural training: A critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments,” Human Resource Management, 39 (2-3): 239-250
Hofstede, G 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Thomas, M. (2002). Chinese and Western Approaches to management. Available at: http://www.mce.be (Accessed: October 7, 2004).
Aaker, D. A. (2001). Strategic market management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ahls, B. (2001, July). Organizational Behavior: A Model for Cultural Change. Industrial Management, 6-12.
Barbeschi, M. (2002) Organisational culture of the OPCW Secretariat Disarmament Forum, Vol. 4, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, pp46-53.
Bennett, R., Aston, A., and Colquhoun, (2000), “Cross-cultural training: A critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments,” Human Resource Management, 39 (2-3): 239-250
Burack, E, Burack, M, Miller, D & Morgan, K 1994, “New Paradigm Approaches in Strategic Human Resource Management,” Groups & Organizational Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 141-160.
Christensen, E., and Gordon, G. (1999). An Exploration of Industry, Culture, and Revenue Growth. Organization Studies, 20(3), 397-422.
Cohen, R. (1991). Negotiating across cultures: Communication obstacles in international diplomacy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Denison, D.R. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Denison, D.R., and Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223.
Dessler, G 1997, Human Resource Management, 7th ed, Upper Saddle River, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Fisher, C, Schoenfeldt, LE & Shaw, JB 1993, Human Resource Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gooderham, PN, Nordhaug, O & Ringdal, K 1999, “Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Resource Management in European Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 3, p. 507.
Gordon, G.G. (1985). The relationship of corporate culture to industry sector and corporate performance. In: R.H. Kilmann, et al (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 103-125). San Francisco: Jossey-B
Gordon, G.G., and DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 783-798.
Hall, T.E. (1979). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press.
Hall, E. T. (1983). Dance of Life. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kluckholn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In K. Uichol, H. C. Triandis and H. S. Hakhoe, editors, Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications. Thousand. Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 85-119.
Kotter, J.P., and Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: The Free Press.
Taylor, J.C., and Bowers, D. (1972). Survey of organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Thomas, M. (2002). Chinese and Western Approaches to management. Available at: http://www.mce.be (Accessed: October 7, 2004).
Trompenaars, F 1993, Riding the waves of culture. Nicholas Brealy, London.
Usunier, J. C. 1996. Cultural aspects of international business negotiations. In P. N. Ghauri & J. C. Usunier, editors. International business negotiations. Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon, pp. 93-118.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment