International Business Cultures: The U.K. and China - Term Paper Example

International business culture Introduction An international business is required to adopt itself with the cultures of different nations. While conducting business on an international scale it becomes essential to know the cultural background of the clients of the business spread across different nations of the world. This helps in developing strong long term international relations. It is important for a business to know the culture of the nation in which it is planning to conduct business. Such an effort is strongly appreciated by the host nation companies. It becomes easier for an international business concern to understand the needs of client companies when there is familiarity with their cultural norms and beliefs. Globalized business environment causes the flow of human resources from one nation to the other. Managers and employees are required to communicate with people from different backgrounds in a globalized business environment. It is essential for international business concerns while operating in a foreign nation to be able to adapt themselves with the cultural beliefs and values existing in the society of the host country (Bennett, Aston and Colquhoun, 2000). In this reflective report the cultural difference existing between the nations of the U.K. and China have been studied. Both the U.K. and Chinese organizations are observed to have distinctive cultures. The cultural dissonance existing between these nations have been analysed in this report. Individual reflection From my perspective, it is important to study the cultural difference existing between different nations as it helps in taking measures for bridging the gap and develop business ties across international boundaries. The difference in the cultural perspectives is seen to arise from the difference in governance, value system, social thinking, attitude and behaviour. The cultural dissonance acts as a barrier for effective communication. This paper speaks about the cultural differences existing between the U.K. and China as understood by me. The analysis and research work that was conducted by me reveal that employees in the U.K. interact in a casual manner while transacting business or communicating with each other. Casual relationships are seen to be a part of their organizational culture. Business entities are seen to communicate with each other directly in a less formal manner. The U.K. based organizations believe that when casual relationships enhance direct attachments. The direct associations between different organizations are important to transact more efficiently. In the context of China however, the interaction between organizations is spiral. Communications between organizations happen in a roundabout manner (Hofstede, 2012). In the U.K. employees are seen to exhibit or speak about their viewpoints regarding different matters openly. The level of indulgence or the desire to speak about individual perspectives is seen to be high in the U.K. Employees in the U.K. are also seen to express their disagreements with their superiors verbally. In the U.K. it has been noticed that when employees are given the freedom to express their thoughts freely, they associate themselves with the organization better (Wang, 2003). Freedom of expression is considered essential to develop effective organizational communication. Restrained behaviour and suppressing disagreements is seen to exist in the Chinese organizational culture. Employees in the Chinese organizations are not encouraged to express their opinions very often. They are mainly expected to perform as directed by their superiors. This type of retrained behaviour is at times not perceived suitable for organizational growth. When employees perform a similar type of work over a long period of time their level of knowledge regarding the job enhances considerably. It therefore becomes possible for them to present their views to the management for increasing work efficiency or provide innovative ideas. Therefore managers and superiors must encourage employees to be more verbal about their opinions (Jandt, 2013). Based on my understanding regarding the communication of messages in the Chinese organizational context, the dependence on inference is high. Communication does not happen directly between superiors and subordinates in Chinese organizations. As a result they rely more upon inferred messages and indirect language patterns. Moreover, since the Chinese employees are resistant to convey their opinions or question their superiors, they try to infer the message communicated to them without expressing their confusions. Since this type of a communication pattern relies much upon perceptions, the possibility of misunderstanding remains high. Contrarily in the U.K., communication is based upon direct transmission of messages. Communication takes place directly between superiors and employees reducing the scope of misunderstandings. Since the communication happens directly, employees are able to procure all necessary information and also clear their doubts. The dependence upon inference for communicating messages is extremely low in the U.K (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001). When it comes to expressing honesty the British are seen to be more overt. Employers have adequate skills to perceive and say whether an employee is speaking the truth or lying. The communication skills of individuals in the U.K. is very well developed which makes them efficient in understanding the intentions of the people with whom they converse. In China however employers lack the ability to detect honesty while interacting with employees (Wang, 2003). The Chinese organizations believe in team work while organizations in the U.K. follow the concept of individual work and self reliance. My studies conducted upon the organizations of China reveal that the employers delegated tasks based to subordinates in teams. This raises the level of dependency between employees to finish the given tasks on time and with accuracy. Team work is seen to effectively increase the productivity of different organizations. In the context of the U.K., it is observed that individual work is given greater priority. Employees are not encouraged to work in teams (Lewis, 2002). In the U.K. economy it is seen that organizational ties do not last long. Business relations get developed fast but are short-lived. On the other hand, in the Chinese business context, organizational administrators strive to develop long lasting business relations. The Chinese culture upholds that business ties are hard to form and therefore they should be maintained for long. Long term business ties are considered to be helpful in improving the overall business operations and reliability upon clients regarding service and product quality (Wang, 2003). In the U.K., business related conflicts are resolved with the support of the legal framework. The number of cases held in courts regarding organizational conflicts is substantially high. In the Chinese context, mediation technique is used to resolve the conflict between the aggrieved parties. The Chinese corporations try not to get into legal matters and settle issues through mutual consent. A win-win situation is tried to be achieved whereby both parties gain or lose in equal proportions. Chinese firms consider that getting involved in legal issues might affect its goodwill and therefore do not seek legal remedial measures for different types of organizational issues. The U.K. business concerns consider that the law has been established to serve the needs of people and organizations. Hence seeking legal remedy when there are conflicts is considered quite normal in their cultural context. Moreover the U.K. business concerns do not prefer a win-win situation; instead they are more inclined upon either winning or losing (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). The U.K. business concerns develop and focus upon short term results rather than long term achievements. The European business entities strive to achieve quick results. Such a culture also affects the manner in which business entities transact with each other. Most business relations are therefore seen to be of short term as long term planning is low. Organizations in the U.K. invest less time and effort to predict uncertain situations that may arise in the future. Chinese organizations on the other hand invest a lot of time in forecasting. They carefully and strategically scrutinize every business venture to measure profitability and its overall outcome. Chinese business entities try to avert risk as much as possible (Thomas and Ely, 1996). After studying the cultural patterns existing in the U.K. and China, it can be stated that the U.K. organization are more profit oriented and business centric than the organizations in China. In the U.K. employers believe that every individual deserves equal opportunity and that employees must be rewarded and treated on the basis of their performance. In China the manner in which employees are treated is different. Employers in China are seen to be bureaucratic and equal opportunities for growth and development is not seen to be provided to all (Thomas, 2008). Conclusion My study upon the cultural differences existing between nations has led me to the understanding that multinational organizations require to adapt with different cultures while establishing their businesses in different nations. A nation’s culture influences the manner in which employees within the organization communicate and delegate authority. Hence the operational conduct varies from nation to nation. Expatriate employees find such situations to be challenging as they are required to adapt to cultures which are different from their home nation. The cultural dissonance is seen to be more pronounced between the organizations of the west and east. The U.K. organizations who establish themselves in China are therefore required to carefully analyse the cultural aspects of the host nation and establish suitable norms. It is essential that employees do not feel uncomfortable to work in multinational organizations due to cultural dissonance. Organizations must therefore adopt such a cultural environment which upholds the values and beliefs of both the home and host nations. Reference List Bennett, R., Aston, A. and Colquhoun, T., 2000. Cross‐cultural training: A critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments. Human Resource Management, 39(2‐3), pp. 239-250. Hofstede, G., 2012. Geert Hofstede. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 4 July 2014]. Jandt, F. E., 2013. An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a Global Community. California: Sage Publications. Kirkman, B. L. and Shapiro, D. L., 2001. The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), pp. 557-569. Lewis, D., 2002. Organization and Management in the Third Sector: Toward a Cross‐Cultural Research Agenda. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(1), pp. 67-83. Matveev, A. V. and Nelson, P. E., 2004. Cross cultural communication competence and multicultural team performance perceptions of American and Russian managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), pp. 253-270. Thomas, D. and Ely, R., 1996, Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity, Harvard Business Review, 74(5), pp. 70-98. Thomas, D. C., 2008. Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts. California: Sage. Wang, Y., 2003. China business culture: strategies for success. London: Thorogood. Read More