Concepts of Culture, Cultural Literacy and Ethnocentricity - Coursework Example

International Business: Culture Introduction Culture is an important concept in the management of organizations because it defines what organizations do and why they get involved in different activities. Culture is particularly important to organizations that are engaged in international business because such organizations employ people from different countries and have to deal with customers from different cultures in their business transactions. Therefore, in international business, managers of organizations have to learn how to deal with people from different cultures based on the different countries from which these people originate. The way in which managers and other people in a business organization will deal with people from different cultures will be based on understanding different cultures across the world. Along this line, this essay will examine the concept of culture and discuss why it is important for people to avoid ethnocentricity and gain cultural literacy. To achieve this, the essay will define the concepts of culture, cultural literacy and ethnocentricity. The essay will also discuss the significance of the aforementioned concepts with reference to the operations of organizations. The essay will then present the business strategies that managers of organizations that are involved in international business can use to ensure that those organizations achieve their stated goals despite having to deal with people from different cultures. Meaning of culture Culture can be defined as the set of beliefs, values, tenets and institutions that a specific group of people holds (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, p. 95). Culture can also be defined as the way of life of a specific group of individuals who have some similarities in terms of certain ideas that they possess and the manner in which they behave (du Plessis & Gerber, 2008, p. 28). For instance, people of the came culture are likely to be dressing in a similar manner, belonging to the same religion, eating the same kind of food and making the same type of art. These shared characteristics in the way of life of people are the aspects that define a certain group’s culture. Even though some authors have attempted to define culture as shown above, others have argued that culture comprises many aspects that have an influence on the behavior of human beings, and this makes it difficult to define the concept of culture (Soares, Farhangmehr & Shoham, 2007, p. 277). This also means that understanding culture is a difficult undertaking because of the many components that constitute the phenomenon. However, culture can still be used to explain the differences between different people. Soares et al. (2007, p. 279) note that the relevance of the phenomenon of culture in explaining cultural differences depends on the ability to break down the concept of culture and identify its components. Frameworks that assist in understanding cultural differences Various models have been used to help in understanding cultural differences between different groups of people. There are two widely accepted frameworks for studying cultural differences: the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework. The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework makes a comparison of cultures based on six dimensions by looking for answers to some questions. The questions include whether people believe that their environment controls them or they control their environment; whether people focus on past events or on the future; and whether people prefer to carry out activities privately or in public (Katsioloudes & Hadjidakis, 2007, p. 50). The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework also seeks to determine whether people are easily controlled and therefore not to be trusted, or whether they can be trusted to act freely and responsively. As well, the model looks at whether people desire accomplishments in life, having carefree lives, or having spiritual lives. Another question in the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework is whether people believe that individuals or groups are responsible for every person’s welfare (Katsioloudes & Hadjidakis, 2007, p. 50). Answers to some of the questions in the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework can be used to highlight some aspects of culture of different groups. For instance, according to Wild and ‎Wild (2012, p. 92), the Japanese culture emphasizes the future due to the strong belief in forming long-term relationships. The same authors note that the Japanese culture attaches value to strong ties between people and groups of individuals, including firms, and as such, forming long-term relationships with individuals is critical when doing business in Japan. For instance, throughout a business relationship, Japanese firms maintain a close, continuous relationship with customers to make sure that their needs are met (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, p. 92). On the other hand, the American culture tends to value individual achievement and is oriented towards the present and the near future (Kulkarni, 2009; Saiyadain, 2003, p. 259). A long-term orientation is characterized by attributes such as valuing the future, thriftiness and saving, and persistence (de Wit & Meyer, 2010, p. 46). On the other hand a short-term orientation values the present, such as being able to fulfil social obligations (de Wit & Meyer, 2010, p. 46). In regard to the Hofstede cultural dimensions framework, there are five dimensions that are used to make distinctions between various national cultures. These are individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity-femininity, and long-term orientation (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, pp. 92-93; Soares et al., 2007, pp. 280-281). Individualism-collectivism is a dimension that identifies the degree to which a given group of people underscores the group versus an individual in the group. Cultures that are individualistic, i.e. those that score highly on this dimension emphasize hard work and advocate taking of risks through entrepreneurship, thus promoting innovation and invention. In such societies, responsibility for an action is placed on an individual rather than the entire group. On the other hand, collectivist societies value strong connections to groups and group achievement, including work and family units. People in cultures that are collectivistic tend to work towards group rather than personal goals and hold such groups accountable for the actions of individuals in the group. Consequently, the group shares responsibility for the good of every member in the group. Based on this, success or failure in a group is attributed to the group rather than to the individuals responsible for the specific actions (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, p. 93). The uncertainty avoidance dimension refers to the degree to which people feel endangered by ambiguous or uncertain situations and try to avoid such situations (Soares et al., 2007, p. 280). This dimension can be used to explain the extent to which societies or organizations need well-defined rules of prescribed behavior. Cultures that have high uncertainty avoidance tend to have more written rules, less risk-taking, and high structuring of organizational activities while low uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to have less organizational structuring, fewer written rules and more risk-taking (Aswathappa, 2008, p. 184). The power distance dimension explains the extent to which people accept inequality in power among them. Societies with high power distance accept inequality of power between people based on their position or age while societies with low power distance expect equality in power (Daft, 2008, p. 340). The masculinity-femininity dimension in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework explains the extent to which a society attaches value to values such as achievement and success, which are regarded masculine, or quality life and caring for others, which are regarded feminine (Soares et al., 2007, p. 280). The last dimension in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework is long-term orientation. Like it is in the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework, this dimension measures the extent to which the reference time frame of people is on achieving short-term goals or long-term goals (Pauleen, 2007, p. 225). Societies with long-term orientations observe values of long-term commitment as well as respect for customs, while short-term orientation societies focus on more immediate goals. This means that short-term orientation societies are more open to change (Pauleen, 2007, p. 225). Cultural literacy and avoiding ethnocentricity Based on the two frameworks of cultural differences that have been highlighted above, it is evident that different societies have different cultures. Additionally large societies such as countries have different subcultures within the widely known cultures. For instance, even though a country may have what is regarded as a national culture, the same country will have non-national cultures (subcultures) of people based on different families, learning institutions, professions, sexual preferences, religion and people working for the same company (Velo, 2011, p. 16). Therefore, managers have to be aware of the differences in cultures between different people in their organizations. Managers also need to have culture literacy, which is defined as having detailed knowledge that is required for one to function successfully in a culture that is not their own (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, p. 95). Simply, put, cultural literacy means understanding and being able to cope with people from different cultural backgrounds. For instance, when dealing with people from different geographical and socioeconomic backgrounds, managers need to come up with measures that promote equity, fairness and inclusivity regardless of one’s cultural background. Such managers should also do away with actions that tend to promote ethnocentricity. Ethnocentricity or ethnocentrism can be defined as the tendency to perceive one’s own culture as the best and to regard other cultures as inferior (Wild & ‎Wild, 2012, p. 95). In international business, managers with an ethnocentric approach to management would regard home country personnel and knowledge as superior or better and would have little consideration for the views of people of other nationalities (Collings & Scullion, 2006). However, such a scenario is problematic in that the home country culture would clash with the cultures of the other people, thus making the work environment unfavorable. As noted by Collings and Scullion (2006, p. 19), “ethnocentric forces can compromise the MNE’s (multinational enterprise) ability to identify and benefit from cultural synergies in their operating units”. In other words, the one-sided mindset of a management team in an ethnocentric organization can hinder an MNE’s international growth. It is therefore important to do away with ethnocentrism in order to create an environment that is conducive for the amicable coexistence of people from different cultures. Strategies to adopt to achieve company goals in international business Managers can adopt various strategies to deal with the challenges of ethnocentricity and thus ensure that their organizations achieve the desired goals. The first approach is to adopt the notion of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism takes the view that one culture does not have a way of judging the activities that relate to another culture as noble or low (Hofstede, 2005). This means treating all cultures as equals without regarding one’s own culture or any other culture as superior to other cultures. As opposed to ethnocentrism, cultural relativism promotes an accommodating and understanding attitude toward other cultures, and therefore produces conditions for successful cross-cultural communication as well as vibrant cross-cultural associations (Maude, 2011). By taking such an approach, managers and other people are likely to see people of different cultures as colleagues rather than inferiors. As such, they are likely to use their knowledge, experience and skills in ways that support each other without looking at the other person as a lesser being. Another way is to recognize the limitations of incorrect notions (that is, what people might be thinking that is not the case), as noted by Ungson and Wong (2008, p. 439). Based on this approach, both managers and other employees need to check their own reactions, look at any underlying assumptions, and reflect on why certain assumptions may not work in a given situation. When the reactions of people of other cultures are taken into consideration, then there are adequate opportunities to the people to learn about themselves. That is, managers should encourage their people to think about how other people would feel when they are perceived in a certain way. Such thoughts are likely to reduce the perception that a certain culture is better than other cultures, hence promoting focus on achieving the organization’s goals. Conclusion In conclusion, culture refers the way in which a certain group of people does things through the values, beliefs, rules, and instructions that such a group upholds. There is a need to understand the differences in cultures of different people in order to find ways of working with people from different cultural backgrounds. In the essay, this has been achieved through the discussion on two cultural frameworks: the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework that has six dimensions and the Hofstede cultural dimensions framework that has five dimensions. Understanding these models can help reduce ethnocentric tendencies in organizations (the perceptions that one’s culture is better than other cultures). Through cultural literacy, which is the awareness about other cultures and ability to coexist with them, managers of international businesses can motivate their employees to achieve the set coals. This can be achieved by adopting the notion of cultural relativity, which discourages the act of judging other cultures as inferior. Managers can also encourage their employee to think about the feelings of people of other cultures when undertaking any action that affects the other cultures. Combined, the two strategies make it possible for people to view others of different cultures as equals, thus enabling them to work together towards attaining the organization’s goals. References Aswathappa, K. (2008). International business (3rd ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill. Collings, D.G., & Scullion, H. (2006). Approaches to international staffing. In H. Scullion & D.G. Colllings (Eds.), Global staffing (pp. 15-34). New York: Routledge. Daft, R. L. (2008).The leadership experience (4th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson. de Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy: Process, content, context: An international perspective (4th ed.). London: Cegange Learning EMEA. du Plessis, N., & Gerber, K. (2008). Marketing communication. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Hofstede, G. H. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Katsioloudes, M.I., & Hadjidakis, S. (2007). International business: A global perspective. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kulkarni, S.A. (2009). Negotiations & selling. New Delhi: Excel Books. Maude, B. (2011). Managing cross-cultural communication: Principles and practice. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Pauleen, D. J. (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Saiyadain, M.S. (2003). Organizational behavior. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. Soares, A.M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies, Journal of Business Research, 60, 277–284. Ungson, G.R., & Wong, Y. (2008). Global strategic management. New York: Routledge. Velo, V. (2011). Cross-cultural management. New York: Business Expert Press, LLC. Wild, J.J., & Wild, K. L. (2012). International business: The challenge of globalization (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Read More