Intercultural Business Communication - Essay Example

? Intercultural Business Communication Table of Contents Introduction 3 2.PART A 4 3. PART B 7 4. PART C 10 5. Conclusion 11 Reference List 12 Introduction Culture can be defined as the combined programming of the mind that differentiates the member of one category of people from the other. This is always a collective phenomenon; however it can be related to different collectives. A variety of individuals belong within each collective. Considering the fact that we live in a global age where technology has brought each and every person much closer to each other than they were earlier, it has been witnessed that people belonging to different cultures are working together and henceforth are having frequent communications. This fact is of obvious interest but however, it can be frustrating at times when the thought comes to one’s mind regarding how one is supposed to relate to someone who belongs to a different culture. In what way must one start a conversion and are there any cultural taboos that one needs to know about? These are the questions that comes in one’s mind when the individual things about working or living with another individual of a different culture. Even after such barrier oriented questions people of different cultures are working, living and communicating with each other effectively and efficiently. Such is the diversity in culture that prevails all over the world. This shows the depth in the cultural dimensions that is witnessed all around the world. Establishing network with people all around the world is just one dimension of the cultural diversity. For the purpose of doing the same, one needs to understand the cultural differences. Psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede came up with a theory that explained different dimensions of cultural diversity and the theories have become a standard that is recognized internationally (Hofstede, 2011). The following sections will involve a thorough analysis of the cultural-dimensional approach with reference to Hofstede’s research that will include arguments in favour of the validity and reliability of his research. Thereafter, the arguments against the cultural-dimensional approach will be highlighted with reference to the notion of cultural heterogeneity and finally the researcher’s own perception regarding appropriate methodology for intercultural business communication research will be provided followed by an appropriate conclusion. 2. PART A 2.1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Approach A discussion on cultural dimension approach must begin with a definition of culture. The quantity of the definition of culture expounded by the scholars are simply too numerous to count and each one is having specific relevance towards understanding the various dimensions of culture. Alvesson (2000) has enlightened about 128 definitions about culture. Hofstede himself has even provided a definition of culture that reflects culture to be a crucial factor that distinguishes one group with other. He defines culture to be “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others”. Much attention has been placed on role of culture in shaping a business in the last few decades and it has never been that much significant as it stands today. Study on this field begun with Hofstede’s famous work on IBM in the early 80s (Arditi and Mochtar, 2000). Culture is adjudged as essential for numerous reasons related to business life. The significance becomes more visible when a business firms starts interacting with people in either forms such as employees, customers, suppliers or any other stakeholder group. Research studies related to cross culture has had most of the values and as a result of that it has succeeded to provide substances to the modern management techniques and practices. Some of the eminent cross cultural researchers such as Geert Hofstede, have to face criticism for failing to provide the valued guiding intelligence. Eminent authors such as Avolio (2007) and Barrett (1993) argues that the theories provided by these theorists highly lack specificity and at the same time the theories were expressed in broader terms. The work on culture by Geert Hofstede is probably the most widely cited in existence (Betts and Ofori, 1992). The observations and analysis carried out by him provide academicians and practitioners with valuable insights into cross cultural relationship dynamics. Despite groundbreaking body of work, it has failed to escape criticism. Hofstede has been dogged by several academicians by partly or fully discrediting his works. On the other hand, there are contentious arguments by another set of scholars that reflects strong support in favour of his works. However, the biggest cause of apprehension is that majority of the academicians belongs to the group that do not supports the arguments presented by Hofstede (Bjerke, 1999). Some of these scholars’ have even mentioned with unabashed confidence that the findings are absolutely based on assumption as no real evidence is presented. This paper therefore seeks to investigate and take an in-depth view at the works accomplished by Hofstede and discuss about both the aspects (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Before getting into evaluation of the statements and arguments presented by Hofstede, it is essential to present a brief synopsis of the study and the findings from the study (Borcherding and Garner, 1981). Geert Hofstede’s s gargantuan research effort which begun on the year 1980 is one of the most vital studies of this field. His study had 116,000 questionnaires and the number of respondents was approximately 60,000 spread in 50 countries of the world. While doing this study he identified four bipolar dimensions and called it as (Power Distance; Individualism/Collectivism; Masculinity/Feminity; Uncertainty Avoidance; and Long term Orientation). A brief description of the factors is presented below: - Power Distance (PD): - Power distance dimension describes the extent to which unequal distribution of wealth and power within the society is tolerated or accepted by the members of the society (Chan and Tam, 1995). In simple terms, this dimension deals with the validity of the fact that all the individuals in the society are not equal. This has been determined by the author in relation to the level of hierarchies in the workplace. Individualism (IC): - This is the measure of the degree to which people of a country likes to work alone or work in a group. It describes about the extent to which interdependence of a society is managed. This reflects the degree of social and communal integration of a society (Dinsmore, 1984; Hoang, 2008). Masculinity and Femininity (MF): - Although this scale does not refers to the gender dominance, but it basically represents the masculine traits such as authority, performance and assertiveness are preferred over the female characteristics such as quality of life, personal relationships and welfare (Lok and John, 2004). A high score in this dimension reflects the industry to be competitive and is driven by achievements. On the contrary, low score in this dimension reflects the industry to be feminine (Naoum, 2001). Uncertainty Avoidance (UA): - The fourth factor is the uncertainty avoidance index which describes about the degree to which people feel threatened due to the lack of structure and uncertainties of the future. Thus it simply refers to the way people will deal with the future and compares between whether future should be controlled or should it just let it happen. Long term orientation (LO): - The long term orientation dimension has close association with the lessons of Confucius. The level to which, society displays pragmatic and future oriented standpoint more than conventional and short term perspective. These factors later became the prime basis on which the countries were characterised. His study has had a remarkable impact on the practitioners and academicians around the world. Furthermore, his model is dubbed as an instrumental factor in the implementation process of a number of business systems and has played crucial roles in sorting out cross cultural issues. A number of scholars have emphasized on the fact that cross cultural research is not a simple task as researchers needs to overcome a number of associated factors that are not inherent in the typical research activities. Although, it has been identified that the criticism against the points and theories of Hodstede have solid base and justified, but it is also a fact that his research works are widely used pieces of research works among the practitioners and scholars (Hoecklin, 1995). Even several scholars and academicians have cited that the theories portrayed by the scholar have various appealing attributes (Handy, 1994). As per the theorists and experts, some of the key reasons that led to the high acceptance rate of the theories portrayed by Hofstede are as follows: - 1. Application: - During the period when the theories were delivered by Hofstede, there were hardly any work on culture carried out. It was only that various business concerns were entering the international arena and were experiencing high amount of difficulties and was literally begging for advices on how to eradicate this culture barrier. Hofstede’s work not only met the expectation, but it exceeded greatly. As a result of that he is still considered as the pathfinder and pioneer in the field of culture research. 2. Severity: - The research carried out by Hofstede was based on systematic data collection, rigorous design and application of coherent theories. Sondergaard (1994) emphasized on the fact that this is what exactly the market was looking for as it succeeded to fulfil the requirements. 3. Relative Accuracy: - After the study carried out by Hofstede, a number of studies were initiated by other scholars so as to test the viability and authenticity of his findings by comparing their results with the one found by Hofstede. Interestingly majority of the findings were in line with his findings which prove his study to be highly realistic and authentic. Hence, this findings and arguments clearly enumerate the fact that the work carried out by Geert Hofstede is ground breaking and revolutionary. The arguments in support of his work also ensures that the research work on cultural is highly viable (Haralambos, Holborn and Heald, 1990). However, to conclude the extent of relevancy and authenticity of the research work carried out by Geert Hofstede, further research is required to capture the shafting cultural trends that are influenced by technology and globalization. 3. PART B 3.1. Arguments criticising Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory As identified in the above section, the theory of cultural dimension proposed by Geert Hofstede contains various flaws. The irregularities appear in different forms such as absence of certain factors that have not been considered by the authors while differentiating the culture of two countries. While analysing the statements and theories made by Geert Hofstede, one this has been observed that research and analysis of cross culture is extremely difficult task. As a result of that it is a necessity for the researcher to overcome the factors that are not intrinsic to the typical research works. The terms used in the research instrument, specifically the word ‘culture’ is itself an interpretation, because studies have suggested that till date 164 different definition of culture has been identified (G. J. Hofstede and G. H. Hofstede, 2005). Now coming back to discussion of Hofstede’s cultural dimension, it is an obvious fact that the study carried out by him was pioneering, yet criticism is a part and parcel of any activity of such magnitude. Ironically, when literature about the arguments against the findings of Geert Hofstede is explored, comparatively more discussion and statements can be found than the availability of literature in favour of the cultural dimension theory. The study of Geert Hofstede has dealt with numerous criticisms and has been complemented on the depth of the quality, breadth of the study and the relevance of his study in the organizational context. Few authors have emphasized on the fact that he has not considered the notion of organizational culture while evaluating his findings and making it applicable in the organizational context. For example, his theories when applied on a real life organization to understand the culture of two countries and this culture could shape the business strategy and operation of a firm, the results might be questionable. This is principally because of the fact that while developing the theory, the author did not consider the notion of organizational culture (Hofstede, 1991). Some of the other key areas where question has been raised pertaining to the viability of the theory is detailed below: - 1. Cultural Homogeneity: - Cultural homogeneity is probably the most popular criticisms of all the type of criticisms being faced by the theories proposed by Geert Hofstede. One of the major flaw as identified by the author is that his study assumed the domestic population to be homogenous whole. Paradoxically, most of the nations considered by the author during the study are ethnic units. As a result of that the analysis carried out on the basis of the character of the individuals, the outcomes do have a possibility of uncertainties. Furthermore, the model predict by Hofstede also tends to ignore the significance of community as well as variations in the influence of community. 2. Relevancy: - A number of researchers enumerate the fact that a survey is inappropriate for the purpose of accurately determining and measuring the disparity of culture of two countries. This is highly relevant if it is being measured in the context of an area which is culturally subjective and sensitive. However, this issue has been addressed by the author saying the fact that surveys are one of the methods of the study and is not the only method used in the entire study. 3. National dissection: - Nations or particular countries cannot be used or not the proper units that can be used for the purpose of analysing the cultures. This is principally because of the fact that nations are not necessarily bounded by the national boundaries. Recent studies have found that culture is actually fragmented across national lines and groups. Hofstede pointed out to the fact that national identities are probably the sole means by which identification and measurement of the cultural differences can be identified. However, in reality the facto is not true enough. Thus selection of national boundaries to differentiate culture is not a wise move by the Geert Hofstede. 4. Influence of Politics: - Whenever a study is being carried out hardly there are any considerations of politics while framing and devising the conclusion. However, the real fact is that politics has a strong influence in any research activities. In the context of the cultural dimension of Hofstede, the influence of politics becomes visible when describing the masculinity and femininity characteristics and uncertainty avoidance index. These factors are strongly influenced by the political situation of the country and it might be a case that when the survey was carried out the country was politically sensitive and was undergoing a turmoil situation. For example, the authors highlight that during the time when Hofstede carried out the survey process, cold was going on in Europe and was still getting haunted by the lively and vivid memories of the world war. Thus, it raises the question of acceptability of the theory. 5. Single company approach: - Whenever a study is being carried out on the basis of a single, its results are hard to generalize. This is because several inter factors differs from one company to the other. In the similar way, scholars have criticized Hofstede’s theory because of its single company approach. However, the author counterfeited this issue by highlighting the fact that he was not appropriately measuring the variables but are try to gauge the difference between the cultures. Furthermore, he found this method of cross sectional culture analysis to be appropriate (Hofstede, 1980). 6. Only few dimensions: - Some of the authors have even criticized the culture model because of less number of dimensions used in the study. Few authors believe that there are other factors that could have been used to measure and identify culture differences. 7. Out-date in the contemporary world: - Some of the researchers have even claimed that the theory of culture stated by Hofstede is out dated and does not hold the same relevance as it used to hold during the time when it was framed. They also stated that for any contemporary value, especially with the rapidly changing global environment convergence and internationalization. However, Hofstede in this context mentioned that his analysis is based on the centuries of indoctrination. In addition, he also provided evidence that showcases culture does not undergoes radical changes overnight. As a result of that to a great extent his theories are authentic. The above discussion clearly points out to the fact that the theory do consists of a number of irregularities. Moreover, the issues raised by the authors above are logical and have high relevancy in the field of business. 4. PART C 4.1. Researcher’s perception In this part of the study, I will be discussing my own position about the above debate regarding appropriate methodology for intercultural business communication research. In the discussion, carried out above it has been found that arguments in favour as well as against the theories proposed by Geert Hofstede. The literature about the subject reflects that the work done by him is probably the most cited theories currently existing. Furthermore, the analysis has also shown that the theory presented by him played a crucial role in providing valuable insights in the dynamics of cross cultural relationship. As a result of that the work of Hofstede is often described as ground breaking. In the similar way, the research work carried out by Hofsteded also assisted the marketers in gaining in-depth insights into the cultural difference of two markets. This allowed the marketers to find the ways by which they can surmount the issue of marketing in a country where the culture is different. Likewise, the various positive sides of the theory, it has to deal with a heap of criticisms. For example, several academicians believe that the factors on the basis of which the culture of two countries has been classified are biased and questionable. According to them, there are other factors that could have been easily used by him to differentiate the culture of two countries. The authors also emphasized on the fact that there are certain other features that have not been considered by the author. According to my opinion, Hofstede’s did not consider the effect of organizational culture in shaping the operation of a firm. However, in reality the role of organizational culture is paramount. Although, the organizational culture of a firm is the reflection of the national culture in which the company operates but still organizational culture is altogether a different trait. Hence, in this context, I will argue against the theories of Hofstede. Another point that I would like to raise against his theories is that, the author did not considered gender issues while evaluating culture, but again in the real world gender did play imperative roles in the process of differentiating cultures. Moreover, studies have shown that there are various factors that can be useful in the process of analyzing the issue of cross cultural communication. Hence, it is obvious that the theories presented by him consists of a number of inconsistencies and raises question about its validity. At the same time it is also a true fact that when the theory of portrayed there were hardly any research work culture that had the privilege to put counter arguments. Therefore, from an overall point of view it is evident that the cultural dimension analysis by Hofstede is an important breakthrough in the field of culture research. It not only provided marketers with a new dimension but has also answered various questions that had remained unaddressed previously. I believe that it is necessary to underpin the actual facts i.e. the real impact of national culture in shaping the business of an organization. At the same time, it is also necessary to unearth the role of organizational culture in a business process. Hence, I would suggest some more research works in the area of concern so that the real scenario appears in front of everyone. 5. Conclusion This study focuses on the cultural dimensional approach with reference to Hofstede’s research. Arguments in favour of the validity and reliability of the research have been set forth. In addition to that arguments against the research with reference to the cultural complexity have also been highlighted. Having done an in-depth analysis of the cultural dimension approach, it can be concluded that the research done in this field by Dr. Geert Hofstede is amongst the most theories. The ideas regarding the dimensions in culture that has been explained by Hofstede plays a pivotal role thereby providing comprehensive knowledge associated with the aspects of cross cultural relationship. The theory has helped researchers to understand the exact nature of differences that exist between two different cultures. The theory has been used in many fields; one of which is marketing where marketers plan their marketing strategies for a particular country or region based upon the cultural dimension approach explained by Hofstede. Whilst the theory has been accepted overwhelmingly by many researchers and leaders around the world, it has also met with severe criticisms. Researchers have argued that the factors based upon which Hofstede has analysed the cultures of two different countries are biased and controversial. According to the researchers there are other factors which should have been considered while conducting such an analysis. However, according to my opinion, the cultural dimension approach by Hofstede is research of paramount importance and is a breakthrough in the field of cultural research. It is a theory that caters to provide answers to the questions of many researchers and leaders around the world which were previously unanswered. Reference List Alvesson, M., 2000. Understanding Organizational Culture. California: Sage Publications. Arditi, D. and Mochtar, K., 2000. Trends in productivity improvement in the US construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 18 (1), pp. 15-27. Avolio, B. J., 2007. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. American Psychologist, 62 (1), pp. 25–33 Barrett, P., 1993. Profitable Practice Management for the Construction Professional. London: E. & F. N. Spon. Betts, M. and Ofori, G. O., 1992. Strategic planning for competitive advantage in construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 10, pp. 511-32. Bjerke, B., 1999. Business Leadership and Culture; National management styles in the global economy. Massachusetts: Elgar Publishing Inc. Borcherding, J. D. and Garner, D. F., 1981. Workforce Motivation and Productivity on Large jobs. Journal of Construction Division, 107(3), 443-453. Chan, A. and Tam, C. M., 1995. Impact of Management Style on Project Cronbach. 5th ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A., 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites And Rituals Of Corporate Life, Reading Mass. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Dinsmore, P. C., 1984. Human Factors in Project Management. New York: American Management Association. Handy, C., 1994. The Empty Raincoat. London: Hutchinson. Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. and Heald, R., 1990. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. 3rd ed. London: Collins Educational. Hoang, H., 2008. Culture and Management: A Study of Vietnamese Cultural Influences on Management Style. Michigan: ProQuest. Hoecklin, L., 1995. Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishers. Hofstede, G. H. and Hofstede, G. J., 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. California: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill. Lok, P. and John, C., 2004. The Effect of Organizational Culture and Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Management Development, 23, pp.321-338. Naoum, S. G., 2001. People & Organisational Management in Construction. London: Thomas Telford Publishing. Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. [pdf] International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Available at: [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Read More