The Culture Profiling Tools and Global Leadership Traits - Research Paper Example

Cultural profiling tools for global business leaders 03182 Cultural profiling is one of the crucial strategies of global business leaders todisseminate organisational cultural traits among potential employees. In the current study, cultural profiling is interlinked with the international knowledge sharing process. Sharing the cultural traits of the organisations is getting more challenging for the leaders. The current study is going to widen the concept of cultural profiling with the help of one brief introduction of the topic. Literature review is developed with the help of discussion on culture profiling tools, Hofstede’s five dimension models of culture and Halls cultural theories. Various leadership approaches are outlined in the study. Discussion is made on the basis of training, implementation of leadership in cultural profiling and initiating change. Finally, a conclusion is drawn on cultural profiling tools and some recommendations are developed for the global business leaders. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Literature review 5 2.1 Culture profiling tools 5 2.1.1 Hofstede’s five dimension model of culture 6 2.1.2 Halls cultural theories 9 2.2 Leadership 11 3. Discussion 13 3.1 Training process 13 3.2. Implement leadership in cultural profiling 13 3.3 Initiating change 14 4. Conclusion 14 5. Recommendation 14 Reference list 16 1. Introduction Organisational or corporate culture can be defined as the contrast of beliefs and behaviours of the employees. Sound organisational culture outlines high interactions between employees and management. Globalised corporate culture is facing the complexity of increasing diverse behaviour of employees (Ashwin, 2012). Organisational culture reflects various attributes like the uniform code, working hours, workplace structure, employee benefits policies, and revenue generation of the organisations, recruiting strategies, and service or product sales process. According to Albaum (2012), Cultural Profiling Tools signify the process of developing unique beliefs and perceptive knowledge among employees. Members of the organisations are required to develop higher level of interactions among each other to disseminate skills and knowledge about the operational process. In the global multidepartment organisations, employees are adopting innovative and unique approach of interaction. In the global business environment, organisations are facing huge challenge in managing cultural aspects in multinational branches. Staffing policy of the multinational companies is exploring human resources and talents from different countries. Thus, HR managers will be facing complexity in managing subcultures of the employees, disseminating organisational objectives, and developing employees (Bhandarker, 2014). In the current study, an in-depth analysis of the Culture Profiling tools and global leadership traits is made. Cultural profiling is a process adopted by the managers in order to share knowledge and develop learning processes among the employees. This study is going to focus on the Hofestede’s five dimension model and Halls cultural theories in order to emphasise on the cultural trait of the global firm’s employees and leaders. Literature review will be providing ideas on the leadership skills required for cultural profiling in any organisation. Discussion is made on the training processes adopted by the global leaders, the process of implementing leadership among the employees, and initiating transformation in the organisational structure. Brief conclusion of cultural profiling tools of the global leaders is provided along with some recommendations for developing leadership structures. 2. Literature review 2.1 Culture profiling tools Brown (2007) stated that culture profiling tools are used by the global managers in terms of outlining the cultural dimensions exiting in the organisations. Managers are able to express the cultural traits required by the organisation and develop value set among the employees. Managers are using cultural profiling tools for developing openness among the organisational employees. Innovative ideas are collected from the employees. Again, Buchowiecka (2014) opined that managers are recruiting people as per their experiences, insights on particular job, and socio-cultural values. Some profiling tools are accepting different employee’s behaviour and managing the working practise as per the employees’ perception and expectation. Cultural profiling tools are used by the leaders in the global business setting to manage the employees from different backgrounds. Mainly international businesses have to manage multicultural employees so cultural profiling tools will aid global business leaders to interconnect culture of the employees and organisations. Employees are able to develop perception on the organisational cultural aspects. According to Caligiuri (2013), cultural profiling will help global managers in disseminating various goals and objectives among the employees of multinational basis. Such tools help organisational managers in obtaining traits of the employees, affects of such traits in organisational performance and outlining limitations faced due to ineffective cultural control. In the following section two particular models are discussed in terms of outlining cultural traits of the employees. 2.1.1 Hofstede’s five dimension model of culture Hofstede made the analysis on the cultural statistics related data of a large multinational organisation. According to Hofstede, there are mainly five different dimensions that are impacting the cultural traits. Mainly, the research database was collected from the employees of IBM organisation (Dawson, 2004). This theory was developed on the basis of affects of national diversity in culture of IBM organisation. Thus, such model can be used in outlining the cultural trait of employees in large multinational organisations. Five dimensions of the Hofstede’s model can be explained as follows: Power and Distance context According to Doh and Stumpf (2005), such context outlines the degree of inequity that exist among the organisational employee base. In the major multidepartment organisations, employees are identified with and without power. Global leaders can use power and distance scores to develop proper cultural profiling system in organisation. High power distance score indicates that power distribution among the society members is unequal. In such cultural profiling tools organisations are developing centralised and strong hierarchy. Employees are facing huge gap among remuneration policy, organisational authority and respect traits of managers. On the other hand, Godwyn and Gittell (2012) argued that low power distance indicates shared power among the employees. Supervisors and employees are treated by the management equally. Individualism Grana and Cucchiara (2012) stated that global leaders are required to develop relationship among the teams and employees from different cultural backgrounds. Individualism refers to the ability of leaders in developing teams and maintaining community terms. High individualism score refers to lower association skills among the leaders. Greenberg and Wolfgang (2008) argued that countries with high IDV score outlines lower interpersonal link among the leaders and employees. Such leaders are emphasising on the privacy of the employees. However, low Individualism scored societies are developing strong cohesion among the groups. Hamady and Knight (2009) opined that global leaders will enjoy more trustworthiness and value provisions among the group members. Leaders are required to provide more rewards to employees. Masculinity Holmes (2010) described that global organisations are facing the conflict among the roles of male and female employees or community members. High MAS scores outlines that there are huge discrimination among the roles of the man and women. In the many countries leaders have to create separate occupation for the women they think that women will be unable to accomplish complex tasks. Lappe and Bailey (2014) stated that communities are expecting distinct male and female roles. On the contrary, lower masculinity scores refers to equality in gender roles. In such context, leaders think there are no such difference among the male and female. Such leadership profiling is aiming to achieve professional success for both male and female employees. Therefore, leaders are expected to develop proper job design treating man and woman equally. Uncertainty Avoidance Index According to McNamara and Bell (2012), globalised businesses are facing challenges regarding risk of failure of strategies. Such context outlines the level of worry that community members are reporting in any sort of uncertain situations. Leaders of any global firms will be facing such challenge in the time of emerging any change in management strategies. Employees or team reports high UAI-scores if they are not flexible to face the uncertainties. In such cases, leaders avoid unclear situations in an organisational culture. Leaders are developing various rules and policies to create formal business environment. OHara (2005) argued that need and expectation of employees are more empowered and uncertainty risks are avoided as much as possible. On the contrary, lower uncertainty avoidance scores indicate that leaders are developing informal business structure. Organisational culture accepts more risk of imposing change management strategies. Leaders guide their team members in achieving long terms goals. Long Term Orientation Oh and Moon (2012) stated that long term orientation is mainly outlining the organisation cultural profiling on the basis of value set of organisational and society members. High LTO score refers family culture is the base of societal culture. Authority is disseminated as per the seniority perspective among the employees. Global leaders are expected to maintain favourable work ethic. Value based learning and training are another Cultural profiling tools to develop employee’s culture. On the contrary, Popli (2013) critically evaluated that low LTO score refers to a organisational cultural state where equality is promoted among the employees. Leaders will empower creativity among the employees and authority is distributed as per potential. 2.1.2 Halls cultural theories According to Halls cultural theories, there are two types of key cultural factors like context and time. Context: Aspects  High-context culture  Low- context culture Communicational overtness Communication process is adopting hidden and inherent terms. People use more figure-of-speech in communication. Communication process is explicit and clear. Employees can understand the messages easily (Schuster, 2010).  Controlling authority and failure transformation Internal control is observed on the employees, failures are accepted individually in such culture.  Control is in the hands of out level employees. Such culture use to blame other for failure of any process and goals.  Non-verbal or written communication Extensive rate of the nonverbal communication is observed over here. Mainly such context is using the verbal communication rather than using nonverbal or written communications. Reaction Employees are reserved in nature they are making more internal reactions. (Shchegolkov, 2014) Employees reactions are more evident over here. Emotions are having exterior presence. Group Cohesiveness in-group and out-group members are having higher interrelationship among each other. Emotional attachment is higher in such context. Employees and group members are flexible in nature, mainly such context is empowering open grouping model for developing need base groups (ShivaKumar, 2012).  Connection among the organisational individuals Employees are having strong relationship among each other in any organisational community People are having weak relationship among each other rather they will not show any sort of trustworthiness to the others. Commitment towards the associated groups In this context, organisational members are showing more dedication in developing enduring relationships. They consider developing association more achievement of goals. Such context considers accomplishment of tasks rather than developing relationship. Timeliness   Flexible time is offered to the employees to accomplish the tasks. Each and every process must be maintained instead of meeting the goals Time is restricted and outcome should be achieved (Srinivasan, 2010). Time: Factor Mono-chronic achievement Poly-chronic accomplishment Performance Only one task is performed at single occasion Multitasking is preferred for the employees Centre of attention Employees have to concentrate on the particular task they are assigned with Diverted attention are observed among the employees Time orientation Tasks must be accomplished within a particular period of time (Svensson, 2007) Such employees will concentrate on quality of job Priority Employees prioritise the job Employees prioritise relationships more. The theory is outlining that both context and time factors are impacting cultural aspects of the employees. 2.2 Leadership According to Thompson (2010), leadership style is essential for using cultural profiling tools in the global business. Mainly, leaders have to perform various tasks like organising employees, directing, mentoring, training and motivating their employees. Different styles will aid leaders in managing their employees very well. There are many leadership styles as discussed below: Autocratic: It empowers the managers to make decisions. The authority of the organisational strategic development lies among managers. Autocratic leaders impose their decisions on the employees. Transactional: This leadership style is adopted by the leaders in terms of increasing employee’s efficiency. Managers develop operational goals and employees have to maintain the benchmarks (Uttamchandani et al., 2010). Laissez-Faire: Laissez-faire leaders are showing less control on the employees. Employees are empowered to work as per the guidelines set by the leaders. Participative: This leadership style aid the leaders to provide values of the skill set and knowledge of members and peers. However, Wibbeke (2008) criticised that participative leaders are having the authority of making the decisions. Transformational: Transformational leaders communicate the goals among the employees. Proper communication will increase the motivational factors of leadership. Therefore, leaders can increase productivity and efficiency of employees. Above mentioned leadership skills are implemented in the cultural profiling process by the global leaders. Leaders are concerned on developing proper organisational culture. Proper leadership skills are helping them in meeting employee’s expectation and perceptions (Woodside, 2011). 3. Discussion Discussion section is outlining the use of the Halls cultural theories and Hofstede’s five dimension model for developing cultural profiling. 3.1 Training process Leaders have to train the new employees as per the various cultural traits of the organisations. Global business leaders can use team based trainings for the high power and distance cultures and individual training for low PD cultures. High Individualism cultures are requiring individual training schedules. On the other hand, Zonis et al., (2003) critically evaluated that masculinity issues can be controlled with the help of mass training involving both male and female employees. Training process will increase efficiency among the employees of high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Risks of change management can be minimised with the help of effective training. Long Term direction can be implemented among the employees with proper training and guiding (Thompson, 2010). 3.2. Implement leadership in cultural profiling According to Srinivasan (2010), global business leaders are expected to show sharpness to manage cultural profiling among the employees. Leaders must be familiar with the behaviours of the employees in the higher power distance context. This awareness will help the leaders to reflect consciousness of organisational culture among employees. Svensson (2007) argued that high power distance cultures can be managed well. Paying attention to the individualistic employees will increase knowledge on the employee cultures. Long term oriented cultures can be controlled with the help of sound interaction strategies (Schuster, 2010). 3.3 Initiating change Popli (2013) stated that leaders have to take the responsibility of emerging change in the organisational culture for meeting the globalised challenges. Leaders must have the idea on the cultural traits of the employees. Change management process is forcing global leaders in collecting cultural information to develop the profiling. Oh and Moon (2012) opined that cultural profiling tools must value the international cultural aspects. However, initiating cultural change among the international employees is quite complex. 4. Conclusion The study will help in obtaining detailed idea on the cultural profiling tools for global leaders. Global leaders have to develop proper cultural dimensions for different national boundaries. Cultural profiling will aid in merging organisational and individual characteristics of the team members. It is obtained that the cultural profiling is disseminating existing cultural provisions among the employees and emerge some innovative concept global culture among the employees. Current study critically outlined the culture profiling tools using the Hofstede’s five dimension model of culture and Halls cultural theories. Context and time is critically aligned with the leadership skills and models. This study also provided the discussion on the training process adopted by the leaders, implementation of leadership traits in cultural profiling and change management process in the global organisations. 5. Recommendation Global leaders can develop proper cultural profiling by emerging different type of leadership skills and theories. Global business leaders can be recommended with the following set of actions or leadership traits to develop proper cultural profiling; Flexibility in nature: Behaviour of the global leaders must be flexible to meet the complexities in various social and cultural situations. Leaders have to analyse the traits of new recruits and circumstances rationally. This trait will increase the feasibility of their decisions. In addition, leaders have to learn various international languages to interact with the global employees. Personal sovereignty While developing the cultural profiling tools, leaders must disseminate their values and beliefs. This trait will help the leaders to analyse strange situation faced by the employees. Leaders are required to maintain unique goals for the different international projects. In addition, they have to guide the employees in order to achieve the goals. Emotional potency Leaders have to utilise the mistakes and risks to learn about operational or cultural aspects. They have to develop capacity of meeting different strange situations. Leaders can implement variety in the strategic development. They are supposed to ensure change management and motivating the followers in gaining more flexibility and productivity as per changing situations. Reference list Albaum, G., 2012. The Relationship Between Psychic and Cultural Distance and Business Ethicality Attitudinal Values of Future Business Leaders. Journal of Global Marketing, 25(2), pp.112-123. Ashwin, A., 2012. CaseBase. Detroit: Gale. Bhandarker, A., 2014. Changing Business Context: Challenges and Opportunities: Dialogue with Thought Leaders. Global Business Review, 15(3), pp.611-621. Brown, J., 2007. The global business leader. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchowiecka, A., 2014. Puzzling over protein cysteine phosphorylation – assessment of proteomic tools for S-phosphorylation profiling. Analyst, 139(17), p.4118. Caligiuri, P., 2013. Developing culturally agile global business leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), pp.175-182. Dawson, J., 2004. Business leaders urged to heed global warming science. Physics Today, 57(10), pp.37-38. Doh, J. and Stumpf, S., 2005. Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Godwyn, M. and Gittell, J., 2012. Sociology of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Grana, C. and Cucchiara, R., 2012. Multimedia for cultural heritage. Heidelberg: Springer. Greenberg, J. and Wolfgang, K., 2008. Metadata for semantic and social applications. Singapore: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Hamady, M. and Knight, R., 2009. Microbial community profiling for human microbiome projects: Tools, techniques, and challenges. Genome Research, 19(7), pp.1141-1152. Holmes, D., 2010. Abnormal, clinical and forensic psychology. Harlow: Pearson. Lappe, M. and Bailey, B., 2014. Against the Grain. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. McNamara, R. and Bell, K., 2012. Dimensions of crime as a social problem. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Oh, J. and Moon, N., 2012. Towards a cultural user interface generation principles. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 63(1), pp.195-216. OHara, P., 2005. Why law enforcement organizations fail. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Popli, S., 2013. Book Review: Leaders on Leadership: Insights from Corporate India. Global Business Review, 14(3), pp.558-561. Schuster, D., 2010. 3D pharmacophores as tools for activity profiling. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 7(4), pp.e205-e211. Shchegolkov, N., 2014. Interactive profiling of chip channels in cutting tools. Russ. Engin. Res., 34(5), pp.334-339. ShivaKumar, S., 2012. Book Review: Loving Your Work: Straight Talk from the Worlds Top Business Leaders. Global Business Review, 13(1), pp.168-170. Srinivasan, S., 2010. Doing Business Globally: Straight Talk from the Worlds Top Business Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008, 96 pp. US$9.95 (ISBN: 9781422126479). Global Business Review, 11(3), pp.466-469. Svensson, G., 2007. Current status and future direction: views from global thought leaders - II. European Business Review, 19(4). Thompson, L., 2010. The Global Moral Compass for Business Leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(S1), pp.15-32. Uttamchandani, M., Lu, C. and Yao, S., 2010. ChemInform Abstract: Next Generation Chemical Proteomic Tools for Rapid Enzyme Profiling. ChemInform, 41(3), pp. 251-257. Wibbeke, E., 2008. Global Business Leadership. Burlington: Elsevier. Woodside, A., 2011. Assessing Tourism Market Opportunities, Network Behavior, and Management Performance. Bradford: Emerald Group Pub. Zonis, M., Lefkovitz, D. and Wilkin, S., 2003. The kimchi matters. Chicago: Agate. Read More