Developing Cross-Cultural Effectiveness in an International Context - Coursework Example

Developing cross-cultural effectiveness in an international context: a critical assessment, supported by examples from (United Arab Emirates) and (United Kingdom) Introduction Culture may be defined as the general way of a group’s or national thinking, feeling, believing and acting. It is the way of life of a group of individuals (Brannen and Doz, 2010). it is a complex whole that entails knowledge, art belief, customs, morals and any other habits and capabilities acquired by members of a certain group in a society (Muzychenko, 2008). This paper provides a critical analysis of the model of culture proposed by Browaeys and Price using United arab Emirates and United Kingdom as case studies (Athanasou and Esbroeck, 2008). The model of culture proposed by Browaeys and Price has eight cultural value orientations with bipolar examples. They include time focus, time orientation, power, competition, action, space, communication and structure. Time focus (monochronic/polychronic) This cultural value orientation of Browaeys and Price is based on what was coined by Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall. Edward and Mildred are credited for having coined the terms Monochronic Time and Polychronic Time (Scullion, 2006). Just like Hall and Mildred, Browaeys and Price uses monochromic to refer to having a lesser sharp, intense, narrow focus on a single aspect at a time. They also take the same view of polychromic to refer to having an open focus on different aspects of the present moment (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). Monochromic time can be measured in terms of what has been attained in a specified amount of time. Monochromic individuals do one thing at a time, concentrate on the job at hand, think about things that ought to be attained, put the job first, rarely borrow or lend things, and places emphasis on promptness (Dowling, Festing and Engle, 2008). On the other hand, polychromic individual do many things at a time, are easily distracted, thing about what will be achieved, places relationships first, borrow and lend things more often and easily and base their promptness on relationship factors (Brannen and Doz, 2010). It has been argued that most people follow monochronic time which is also referred to as linear time. It is further argued that people disconnect from the perception of their own internal physiology and relationship with others when they operate based on monochronic time (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). As a consequence, monochromic individuals and polychromic individuals are considered to be either low context or high context (Dean and Regent University, 2007). In this sense high context individuals connect deeply with others and are intuitive listeners who take in detailed background information about the person they are interacting with (Nevins and Money, 2007). It has been argued that polychromic individuals are often high context individuals while monochromic are low context individuals (Evers, Anderson, and Voskuijl, 2005). In our context Arabs have been traditionally been considered to be high context individuals and hence it might be expected that they are polychromic individuals (Muzychenko, 2008). Thus, it might be inferred that United Arab Emirates citizens are polychromic individuals (Deardorff, 2009). On the other hand most western cultures vary in their focus on either polychromic or monochromic (Burton, 2009). However, United Kingdom has been traditionally been seen to place more focus on monochromic (Brannen and Doz, 2010). This implies that an individual from United Arab Emirates working with an individual from UK may result in conflicts due to mismatches in the time mode they operate in (Stahl and Bjorkman, 2006). it has been suggested that such conflicts can be resolved by each one of them being sensitive to another’s time mode. This implies that gaining insight into your own culture and understanding the culture of others as suggested by Browaeys and Price can help alleviate such mismatches (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). The individuals in focus can also try to adapt their professional skills to the culture and working style of the society or country in question to minimize such conflicts. Time orientation (past, present and future) The concept of time orientation was first introduced by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck who argued that time orientation is majorly a product of an individual’s culture. It is argued for instance that a person could be encouraged via a complex socialization process to have either a past or future orientation. It is argued that traditional societies are in favor of a past time whereas modern western societies are in favor of a future time orientation (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck argued that people from western countries, UK included, are more future time oriented while those from Far East countries, UAE included are more past time oriented. On the other hand they argued that Latin Americans are more present oriented. Thus Browaeys and Price time orientation is related to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck time orientation concept. This cultural value model tends to differ slightly from the Hall’s monochronic and polychromic time orientation (Brannen and Doz, 2010). However, based on the fact that westerners are grouped as monochromic whereas others such as Arabs and Latin Americans being grouped as polychromic provides some similarities with time orientation proposed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck. Another model that categorizes culture based on time puts individuals into linear separable, circular traditional and procedural traditional (Nevins and Money, 2007). It also informs time orientation value cultural model in that the linear separable time perception is attributed to Anglos who are in favor of a strong future time orientation (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). The circular traditional time orientation in this model which is often referred to as manana spirit fosters a present time orientation (Muzychenko, 2008). On the other hand, the procedural traditional time perception favors a strong past orientation. It is apparent that even though Browaeys and Price uses time focus and time orientation as two different cultural values they are interrelated. This is because it has been argued that the notion of monochronic time in time foc us is related to a strong future orientation while the notion of polychromic time is related to present and past orientation (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). It has been argued that the cognition and behaviors of an individual are not completely dictated by a specific time orientation. Based on this it is argued that an individual is capable of operating within different sets of beliefs and time perceptions. Thus an individual from UAE can operate in UK without necessarily having to find himself in conflicts with the country’s culture (Brannen and Doz, 2010). This can be enhanced by Browaeys and Price views of how such integration can be attained via self awareness cross cultural understanding and adapting an individual’s professional skills to the culture and working style of the society or country in question. Power (hierarchy and equality) The concept of power distance was introduced by Hofstede. He defined power distance as the extent to which less powerful individuals of organizations and institutions within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). A high power distance society according to Hofstede was characterized by inequalities of power and wealth while a low power distance is characterized by promotion of equality and opportunity for everyone. This is related to Browaeys and Price power cultural value orientation. The high power distance is related to Browaeys and Price hierarchical cultural value orientation whereas the low power distance is related to equality cultural value orientation. The Arabs, UAE include, are traditionally known to value hierarchy whereas European countries such as UK value equality. Thus conflicts are likely to arise in tasks requiring equality when an individual from UAE is working with an individual from UK (Brannen and Doz, 2010). For instance, a pilot from UAE and another from UK flying an Airbus ought to be equal. Any conflicts arising due to their cultural differences in terms of power could result in an air crash. Thus, some consideration need to be made prior to having such individuals with varying power distance perform a task together (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). Browaeys and Price suggestion of ensuring cross cultural effectiveness can be handy in such situations (Muzychenko, 2008). Such differences are unlikely to exist if for instance the two co-workers have been trained in the same environment (Nevins and Money, 2007). This is because studies have indicated that students exposed to foreign cultures are likely to undergo acculturation to that particular culture (Dowling, Festing and Engle, 2008). Competition (competitive and cooperative) Individuals from different cultures have been found to vary in terms of the extent to which they have a competitive versus a cooperative orientation toward performance of tasks and toward interactions. It has been argued that individuals with competitive cultural value orientation have a cognitive style that is field independent which encourages autonomous decision making and hence resulting in individual competition in social interaction (Nevins and Money, 2007). On the other hand, individuals with cooperative cultural value orientation are argued to be field-dependent resulting in them employing more interdependent and cooperative personal styles. This argument is related to Hall’s work on high- and low- context cultures. The low context proposed by Hall is related to the notion of field independent while high context is related to field dependent (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). Studies have also shown that women are more likely to be cooperative than men who are more of competitive (Brannen and Doz, 2010). This cultural value orientation thus seems to overlap with Hofstede dimension of masculinity and femininity. It also has some aspects of Hofstede’s collectivist and individualistic dimension (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). The relationship provided in this orientation is related to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck which describes men’s relation to other men as to the level of their possible competitiveness. Studies have also indicated that western countries embrace competitiveness while people from Arab countries are more of cooperative (Muzychenko, 2008). This shows that in a workplace with Arabs say from UAE and westerners say from UK, there is likely to be conflicts on how tasks are to be performed. However as indicated above, acculturation using methods proposed by Browaeys and Price such as self awareness cross cultural understanding and adapting an individual’s professional skills to the culture and working style of the society or country in question can help avoid or resolve such conflicts. Action (activity: doing and being) This cultural value orientation is based on Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck model of being and doing (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). This model is also related to power orientation which argues that doers like to be measured while being orientations are not focused on efficiency but they focus on effectiveness and adapting. Cultures such as those found in UK are more inclined to doing than being while those of UAE are more inclined to being than doing (Muzychenko, 2008). Thus managers from UAE working in UK need give clear responsibilities and tasks in order to adapt to such cultural orientation of doers. Space (private and public) Concern about space in cultural studies was first introduced by Hall. Hall is mainly associated with proxemics and his work is argued to have been based on Hofstede’s work especially power distance index which relates to space (Brannen and Doz, 2010). This shows a deep implication of space orientation for managers. The space referred to by Browaeys and Price is argued to be more related to Trompenaars’ space in which space is shared freely versus diffuse culture where more formality prevails.UAE has an open space culture while UK has a closed space culture (Nevins and Money, 2007). This implies that UK management ought to be aware that open space (public) cultures such as that which exists in UAE may be offended by the shutting door (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). On the other hand, managers from UAE need to be aware that people with private space cultures such as those from UK may be offended if the office door is open and located near employees since they might feel being watched and controlled (Pellegrini, Scandura and Jayaraman, 2010). Communication (high context and low context) It is argued that one cannot communicate on the basis of reasoning that even if one is not verbally speaking body language and expressions are always present (Ang, 2008). This implies that communication orientation provided by Browaeys and Price is vital for any business (Ang, 2008). This orientation is related to Hall low and high context orientation. According to Hall low context messages and tasks are highly detailed and explicit. On the other hand high context messages are left unsaid and implied in order to avoid confrontation (Muzychenko, 2008). Browaeys and Price used Hall’s high and low context model to explain communication orientation. It has thus been argued that body and tone language may result in language barrier dependent on the culture in which the firm operates (Brannen and Doz, 2010). This implies that managers need to be able to interact appropriately to reduce such barriers. It has been found out that workers from high context such as from UAE may feel threatened by a low context oriented manager from say UK who has explicit responsibilities and detailed schedules (Nevins and Money, 2007). Furthermore, low context employees from say UK may feel unsure and badly lead when their manager is a low context Structure (individualism and collectivism) This Browaeys and Price’s orientation is based on the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s ‘I’ versus ‘we’ dimensions (Gannon and Newman, 2002). The ‘I’ dimension is encouraged to independent (individualistic) and is more interested in personal achievements and goals (Conger and Riggio, 2007). On the other hand the ‘we’ orientation is more conformed and reluctant to defy standards set (collectivism) (Brannen and Doz, 2010). The individualism presented in this orientation is similar to Hofstede’s individualism where ‘I’ tasks have priority over harmony and relationships while ‘we’ is related to Hofstede’s collectivist mentality where social skills and groups are prioritized (Karra, Philips and Tracey, 2008). Based on this cultural value orientation highly structured tasks and individual opinion as embraced in UK may cause distress to a collectivist culture of an individual from say UAE where group decisions, sharing and deviations from standards are acceptable. Conclusion It is clear from the discussion that Browaeys and Price model of culture borrows a lot from previous models especially those developed by Hofstede and Hall. Most of Browaeys and Price’s cultural value orientations have overlapping features. Even though their suggestion of how cross cultural effectiveness in an international context is valid, questions arises as to whether some individuals with deep rooted cultural beliefs can or might be willing to make such sacrifices to fit into the prevailing culture. The model might be criticized for not coming u[p with new ideas but instead uses the already existing models. However, it might be argued that its reliability on other models makes it more valid model since it integrates several models some of which such as that of Hofstede are based on empirical data. The model also seems to be more informative since it provides managers with ways of dealing with various cultural issues that are common in work place. The time focus cultural value orientation in Browaeys and Price’s model provides an informative perspective of how individual thinking might impact on their perception of manager’s actions and thus helps to inform managers on how they can handle individuals who are more monochronic or polychromic. Time orientation cultural value orientation described by Browaeys and Price helps to inform managers about the behavior and cognition of individuals in work place and hence enables managers to deal appropriately with individuals from past, present or future orientation. Browaeys and Price’s power cultural value orientation is also informative to managers when dealing with individuals from varied power distances as described by Hofstede. The behavior of employees of say embracing team work or individual work can be deduced from competition cultural value orientyation provided by Browaeys and Price. This is important to help managers in making decisions related to issues such as promotion to avoid cases where competitive oriented individuals are promoted at expense of those who embrace cooperative views. The allocation of responsibilities and tasks at workplace can highly be improved when the manager knows the action cultural value orientation of its employees. Space described by Browaeys and Price can enable managers to know how to deal with issues affecting its employees either privately or publicly. The way managers communicate with his/her employees can best be improved by learning whether the employee is from high or low context cultural orientation. Finally the structure described by Browaeys and Price can help managers in structuring tasks based on whether the employees are from individualistic or collectivist culture. Reference Brannen, M., and Doz, Y. 2010. From a distance and detached to up close and personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in international management research and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 236-247 Muzychenko, O. 2008. Cross-cultural entrepreneurial competence in identifying international business opportunities. European Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 366-377 Nevins, J., and Money, R. 2007. Performance implications of distributor effectiveness, trust, and culture in import channels of distribution. Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 46-58 Karra, N., Philips, N., and Tracey, P. 2008. Building the Born Global Firm: Developing Entrepreneurial Capabilities for International New Venture Success. Long Range Planning, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 440-458 Dowling, P., Festing, M., and Engle, A. 2008. International human resource management: managing people in a multinational context, 5th Ed. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. Ang, S. 2008. Handbook of cultural intelligence: theory, measurement, and applications. London: M.E. Sharpe. Pellegrini, E., Scandura, T., and Jayaraman, V. 2010. Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Paternalistic Leadership: An Expansion of Leader-Member Exchange Theory. Group Organization Management, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 391-420 Athanasou, J., and Esbroeck, R. 2008. International Handbook of Career Guidance. New York: Springer Gannon, M., and Newman, K. 2002. The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management. London: Wiley-Blackwell Dowling, P., Festing, M., and Engle, A. 2008. International human resource management: managing people in a multinational context, 5th Ed. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. Conger, J., and Riggio, R. 2007. The practice of leadership: developing the next generation of leaders. London: John Wiley & Sons Dean, B., and Regent University. 2007. Cultural intelligence in global leadership: A model for developing culturally and nationally diverse teams. London: ProQuest. Evers, A., Anderson, N., and Voskuijl, O. 2005. The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection. London: John Wiley & Sons. Scullion, H. 2006. Global staffing. London: Routledge. Deardorff, D. 2009. The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, 2nd Ed. New York: SAGE. Stahl, G., and Bjorkman, I. 2006. Handbook of research in international human resource management. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Burton, D. 2009. Cross-cultural marketing: theory, practice and relevance. London: Taylor & Francis. Read More