Business Communication and Workplace Practices in Australia and China - Case Study Example

Date: Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to highlight the differences and similarities between the business communication and workplace practices in Australia and China. The report is premised on the reflective journal entries that were posted relating to the topic, and also applies various cultural theories (Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hall). The major findings are the differences between people from China and those from Australia. For instance, the Chinese are collectivistic, have low uncertainty avoidance, like power differences in the workplace, and prefer building long-term relationships in business. Australians on the other hand have characteristics that are the converse of the aforementioned. However, both cultures are masculine, although in different contexts. It is recommended leaders should understand these differences and consider them in processes such as recruitment, training and communication in workplaces that have people from different cultures. Importantly, mangers should be aware of the differences and help workers who are not acquainted with the various aspects of culture when working in a cross cultural context. Table of Contents Introduction The aim of this report is to compare and contrast the business communication and workplace practices in Australia to those of China. The report is based on the reflective journal entries that were posted relating to various business and workplace aspects in both Australian and China. The report will engage various cultural theories (Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hall) to illustrate the differences and similarities in the business relationship contexts of the two countries. Based on the findings of the report, recommendations will be made on how cross cultural awareness can be enhanced between culturally diverse business partners. Part 1: Cross Cultural Reflection: Differences and Similarities between the Business Communication and Workplace Practices in Australia and China The differences between business communication and workplace practices in Australia and China can be perceived by looking at the journal entries for module 1, 2, 3 and 5. The journal entries touched on various issues including intercultural communication, perceptions of professional behaviour, job recruitment practices, business communication styles, and job interview practices. The differences noted in the journal entries can be understood by analysing the various cultural theories in literature. These are the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions and Hall’s cultural dimensions. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory is based on five aspects of intercultural relationship: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 56). a. Communication and Hierarchy in the Workplace The power distance dimension describes the extent to which people accept that power in an organisation or society is distributed unevenly (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 56; Samovar, Porter & McDaniel 2010, p. 302). When people agree that power is distributed unevenly, power distance is considered to be high. In contrast, low power distance refers to a situation where people do not gladly recognise an uneven distribution of power. Typically, within American and European cultures there is low acceptance of power distance, whereas in many Asian cultures there is acceptance of high power distance (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 56). The foregoing explains why there are differences in matters of communication and professional behaviour between the two countries. For instance, within European organisations (keeping in mind that Australia’s culture is largely derived from UK and US cultures), there is often a belief that a participative style of making decisions will be the norm, whereas in Asian organisations (like in China), employees are more willing to accept decisions made by their leaders with little input from them (the lower-level employees) (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 56). b. Impacts on Team Work: Individualism and Collectivism Individualism versus collectivism refers to the extent to which people stress individual or group needs (Johann 2008, p. 6; Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 57). In individualistic cultures like Australia, people tend to take care of themselves, and a high value is placed on individual achievement, privacy and autonomy. In collectivistic like China (Jiang 2006, p. 75), people are more likely to perceive themselves as members of a group that protects and cares for every individual in exchange for devotion and loyalty. This group can be a family, tribe, clan or organisation. Since individuals from China are likely to view themselves as part of a group, this is likely to affect how they relate with others in the workplace and even during a job selection process such as an interview. For instance, Schmitt (2012, p. 756) argue that individuals from collectivistic so societies seem to be reluctant to use the expression “I” during interviews or to refer to taking charge of tasks or situations personally. This is in contrast to the situation in Australia where employees are expected to be self-reliant and exhibit initiative. In addition, unlike Australians who may disagree with a visitor in a meeting, the Chinese will often say ‘yes’ even when they mean ‘no’ so that they do not give offence to their visitors. This is called saving face and is typical of many Asian cultures and organisations (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 57). Hence, an Australian manager dealing with employees from China must take such issues into consideration when relating with or interviewing people of Chinese origin. c. Work-life Balance in a Masculine Culture Masculinity versus femininity refers to the degree to which an organisation or society values assertiveness and materialism vis-à-vis supportiveness and harmony (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 57). The values that characterise masculinity are assertiveness, being ambitious, risk taking and aiming at competiveness. On the other hand, cultures with high femininity stress on nurturing behaviours. The cultural differences between practices in Australia and China are not clear-cut, as both societies are perceived to be masculine in different contexts based on their high masculinity indices (Hermann 2008, p. 50; Hofstede 2001, p. 285). For China, the Chinese society is patriarchal and seniority-oriented, which implies masculine values. On the other hand, the tendency by the Chinese to rely on strong social networks that are referred to as Guanxi, and to save face as discussed above are somewhat feminine values (Hermann 2008, p. 50). Guanxi leads to another cultural dimension which is long-term orientation. This is the extent to which a society emphasises long- or short-term goals (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 58). A culture that is characterised by long-term orientation focuses on stability, order, persistence and thrift. Conversely, a culture characterised by short-term orientation anticipates immediate returns and thus focuses on the fulfilment of immediate needs rather than long-term investments (Stonehouse et al. 2007, p. 58). Countries such as Australia and the US rank low in the long-term orientation index since most organisations there strive more to be successful in the short-term than in the long-term. Long-term orientation on the other hand as depicted by the Guanxi culture in China stresses on achievements in many respects such as life-long employment, saving for the future and so forth (Johnston 2012, p. 22). d. Taking risks in Business: Uncertainty Avoidance The uncertainty avoidance dimension implies the extent to which the members of a society feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 71). Societies that have strong uncertainty avoidance are characterised by the need for rules and formality that provide structure to life and offer a greater sense of security. In such cultures, communication is more formal and competition and conflict are threatening (Baumann, p. 53). Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures like China also prefer the status quo and tend to have a high level of resistance to change and new ideas (Beugré 2007, p. 58). In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance implies that people have high tolerance for the unclear, unstructured and unpredictable (Daft, Kendrick & Vershinina 2010, p. 136). Such cultures, like Australia, believe that there should be as few rules as possible (Baumann, p. 53). Hence, low uncertainty avoidance is characterised by a high level of innovativeness and entrepreneurship as noted by Beugré (2007, p. 57), and this is most likely the reason why Australian managers emphasise on having employees who are enthusiastic team members and dependable, who display initiative, and who have the drive and ability to work unsupervised as noted in the module 2 journal entry. Part 2: Recommendations on How to Enhance Cross Cultural Business Awareness a. Intercultural Awareness and Training Trompenaars’ and Hall’s cultural dimensions can be used together with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to understand cross cultural business awareness. Trompenaars’ seven dimensions of culture focus on interpersonal relationship areas such as universalism versus particularism, neutral versus emotional, specific versus diffuse, exposure and significance to time, and exposure and significance to environment (Vellnagel 2010, p. 16). These dimensions refer to areas such as one’s expression during the communication process, use of public space and so on. Some of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions go hand in hand with Trompenaars’ dimensions, for instance according to Beugré (2007, p. 59), collectivist cultures tend to be particularistic whereas individualistic cultures have the tendency to be universalistic. In addition, Hall’s cultural dimensions categorise cultures as either high context (for instance China) or low context (for instance Australia) (Steers 2006, p. 132). Managers of multicultural organisations must therefore understand these issues by undergoing training on how to manage cross cultural settings. For instance, they must be aware of when to express emotions and what this could imply to their employees from different cultures. Similarly, managers need to understand the differences in terms of power distance, uncertainty avoidance and so forth among employees from different countries and take this into account when assigning people tasks, especially in teams. b. Communication and Reflection Strategies As it has been indicated, individuals from collectivistic societies are likely to be attached to groups, unlike those from individualistic societies. This aspect is important in cases where employees are expected to be innovative, as those from individualistic societies are likely to be more adaptive to innovation, change and so on. In contradistinction, individuals from collectivistic societies are likely to be better in team work but not in individual tasks like interviews that require them to communicate about their individuals abilities. For this reason, a person from China taking a job interview must try to communicate effectively as an individual and show his or her ability in doing the job at hand. Importantly, interviewers must be aware of the differences between Chinese and Australians in taking individual tasks. Conclusions This report has discussed the cultural differences that exist in the context of business communication and workplace practices in China and Australia. It is noted that managers need to be aware of these differences by understanding the various cultural theories in literature as put forward by Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hall among others. Understanding these theories and differences between people of different nationalities is important in managing communication and relationships in workplaces since by being aware of the differences, managers would be able to handle the challenges that face any employee who is not acquainted with the culture of others within an organisation or in a business partnership. References Baumann, A 2007, Influences of Culture on the Style of Business Behaviour Between Western and Arab Managers, GRIN Verlag, Munich. Beugré, C D 2007, A Cultural Perspective of Organizational Justice, IAP, Charlotte. Daft, R L, Kendrick, M & Vershinina, N 2010, Management, Cengage Learning EMEA, New York. Hermann, S 2008, Intercultural Aspects of Mergers & Acquisitions in Consideration of the Chinese Market, GRIN Verlag, Munich. Hofstede, G H 2001, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, SAGE, London. Jiang, J 2006, The Role of Culture in Online Organization-publics Relationship Building: Comparing Design and Content of Corporate Web Sites in the United States and China, ProQuest. Johann, R 2008, Cross-Cultural Management, GRIN Verlag, Munich. Johnston, T, Dogan, A, van Hooven, L & Schroevers, S 2012, Where Cultures Meet: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Business Meeting Styles, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Samovar, L A, Porter, R E & McDaniel, E R 2010, Intercultural Communication: A Reader, Cengage Learning, New York. Schmitt, N 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Steers, R M 2006, Managing in the Global Economy, M.E. Sharpe, New York. Stonehouse, G, Campbell, D, Hamill, J & Purdie, T 2007, Global and Transnational Business: Strategy and Management, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Ting-Toomey, S 2012, Communicating Across Cultures, Guilford Press, New York. Vellnagel, C 2010, Intercultural Communication within the Tourism Industry, GRIN Verlag, Munich. Read More