Factor of Culture in International Management - Term Paper Example

International Management Introduction Culture is very critical in international business management because its evident the different people hold different beliefs some of which may contradict seriously. As a result, the management need to understand culture by definition and the factors that surround such issues. Several scholars have come up with conceptualization to help explain the variation similarities that are evident in the different nations. Most of the conceptualization of culture at national levels instigate from the nation state perception of harmonized national culture. Researchers have reported the co existence of contrasting ends of the continuum of the models that have been described in nation like India, Russian, china and others. Culture will be described in this paper by looking at the qualifications of culture development from a multidisciplinary point of view. The typology of antecedents elucidates the likelihood of unpredictability within the nationalized culture and as well elucidates the fact that culture may perhaps not be bound by state boundaries (Triandis 2002b). Models of Culture It became very difficult to explain a complex phenomenon like culture basing arguments on tow layers yet the problem was like an onion model. Basically multifaceted approach was the best way to go. There are tow famous models of explanations to culture (Adler 2002). Trompenaars and Hampde-Turner Model- they also adopt the onion model concept of describing culture. Nonetheless, their model increases the core level of the very basic two encrusted model, to a certain extent than the outer level. In their perspective, culture is comprised of basic assumptions at the centre point. The fundamental assumptions are to some extent comparable to the values in the Hofstede model (Hall 1996). Hofstede Geert- he described culture as a collection of aspect that programs the mind and differentiates the elements of one grouping or class of people from another. He proposed four layers each of which included lower level being a model of a peeled onion, layer after layer. Figure 1 shows how Hofstede indicated the differences between culture, personality and human nature (Hofstede & McCrae 2004). Figure 1 Three/more) levels of human rational programming. (Source: tailored from Hofstede, 1991) One weakness of the cross-cultural analyses is the failure to go beyond the predisposition to equate culture with the conception of the country. A nation state is a political unit which consists of an independent state populated primarily by inhabitants sharing a universal culture, language/languages and history. Cultures do not have strict borders like nations or states. Its appearance and even core beliefs can presuppose many transformations and combination as we move transversely within distances (Holden 2002). This field of course has faced a lot of criticisms fro other scholars like Holden Nigel, they term these models as being too dialogue-focused and extremely paying attention to cultural dissimilarities of overseas language competence. Inter cultural communication is argued to be a deciding factoring atmosphere in communications. In The major conflict with Hofstede, organizational processes are considered very significant compared to organizational cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). Culture has a function of interpreting certain things among the grouping that share that culture. Though all members of a group or society could be sharing the same culture, their individual expressions of the same culture-resultant behaviour are varied depending on the personality of the individual to as significant extent. Cross cultural analyses target to exploit this utilitarian utility of culture as an instrument for increasing human adjustment and humanizing communication (Peppas 2001). Culture- refers to arts and other expressions of human logical accomplishment considered collectively, the customs, and institutions of a certain nations, or group of people. A Nation- is a larger group of people united by common ancestry, language or culture and reside in a country or state (Triandis 2002a). Nation State- this refers to a sovereign state of which many of the residents or subjects are united by factors comparable to those uniting a nation for instance common language or common ancestry (Triandis 2002a). Cultural Variation Culture has been described as a program that controls the mind (Hofstede 1981) and Trompenaars 1994 suggested that culture was as consequence of finding solutions to problems within that particular environment, relationships with other people and time (Triandis 2002b). Basically some scholars have described the existence of culture as going beyond the boundaries of the nation. And that what could be culturally true in one nation may not apply in the nest, for instance, the French out more importance on the past while the American consider the future to be the most important than the past. Some states like India, time never ceases even after death. The Americans view time as linear while Indians view it in circular format as in the future, the past and the present integrate to form a organized form in one piece (Triandis 2002a). The idea that a nation state has a distinct culture which is its own may not be correct. Basically some believe that there is no need of aligning any link between a nation state and culture. Nation state is a political entity. India for instance came into existence without any commonality in terms of language, race or culture. Other nations like most of the African countries and the Asian nations were formed by the European colonialist with no regard to tribal similarities or culture whatsoever (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997). Many nations have more than one culture There is increasing number of evidences from research that the relationship between national cultural values and culturally- manipulated job related ideals and attitudes are very complicated and that cannot be wholly explained by Hofstede’s model. A very intensive study of the society, culture and work by Tayeb revealed that people in India and Iran did not behave as the Hofsede’s model had described. These societies are described by several factors including a strong sense of community or social grouping (Thomas & Au 2002). Basically as typical Indian is very loyal to the society or group and places the groups has interests in. as a matter of fact, one will expect that these type of character i.e. collectivism, be carried to their places of work, in the form of for example commitment of the highest levels, hardworking, emotional attachment and dedicated to serving the company. Nonetheless, a closer scrutiny of the community social cultures, workers attitudes and values, and the management organization of work institutions in the country indicate that it’s only in Japan that collectivism of the Japanese culture has been transferred to their work organizations (Hofstede 2001). FIGURE 2: Individualism Values for India, the US and Venezuela for Hofstede’s (1991, 2001) It’s quite evident that many Indians are not attached to their work and in moist cases care about individualistic needs not connected to the work at all. There are several reasons that can explain this in both cultural and non-cultural grounds; these reasons only reveal following a thorough careful and detailed analysis of the nation and its organizations (Hofstede 1991). Comparing Hofstede and Trompenaars Out of the seven dimensions of Hofstede, two of them are closely related and reflect the dimension of collectivism and individualism. Hofstede initially made postulations that specific country position on individualism and collectivism continuum and these ranks were widely used for grouping nations in terms of comparable and different cultures. Individualists tend to have a preference of doing their work alone with individual objectives of basic significance where collectivists like working together with others as in a group and collective goals are given first priority (Hofstede 2001 & Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998). Trompenaars Hampden – Turners communitarianism-individualism is basically similar to Hofstede’s Individualisms-collectivism (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). The results of analyses of these two models are very critical as they from similar outcomes. However, this is not a perfect match. In some cases, Hofstede’s power index does not only communicate to the way status is obtained but also to the suitable power indifference within the social order, an area that is not in any way addresses by Trompenaars-Hampden Turner model (Ali et al 2006). Trompenaars - Hampden Turner model has other dimension s that are basically inclined towards some resultant effects of the fundamental value dimensions. For instance, their emotional- neutral dimension explains the degree to which thoughts are openly expressed. That is, characters feature rather than a quality in itself (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997). Their universalism/particularism quality inclination, describes an inclination for rules rather than having trust in relationships, could be deduced as part of Hofstede improbability evasion dimension on the one side, and to some degree the collectivist – individualist dimension (Hall & Hall 1990). Their diffuse-specific value inclination, describes the range of participation, give the impression to having no direct connection to any of the Hofstede’s dimensions (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). The diffuse –specific quality inclination describes the range involvement, appears to be having no direct connection with any of the Hofstede’s dimensions (Ali & Brooks 2008). An evaluation indicates wide consistency in the particular classifications of nations. for instance India and Japan have been found to be relatively week in terms of Individualism considering Hofstede and Trompanaars-Hampden Turner while the US, the UK an Denmark are relatively individualistic as explained by Trompanaars than do Hofstede explanation and study. India has a lot of controversies in terms of explaining its culture because of the many factors that led to its establishment and the inconsistent way it operates in businesses and other organizations (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997) Conclusion About one third of the total populace of the world resides in China and India. These nations have been determined to be largely collectivists. Awareness of such statistics has lead to research on cultural dimensions of individualism against collectivism and so on. By being familiar within these concepts can enable the planning and management of multinational organizations in different countries as one can analyze the situation and draw solutions from them. It’s therefore imperative to understand the interaction between the Hofstede model and Trampenaars-Hampden Turner effect and description of the different cultures References Adler, N.J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 4th Ed. South-Western. Ali, M. & Brooks, L (2008). Culture and Is National. Cultural Dimensions Within Is Discipline. Bournemouth University Ali M. Brooks L. & Alshawi, S. (2006). Cultural Dimensions And CRM Systems- - A Cross-Cultural Case Study… Proceeding Of UKAIS 2006, University Of Gloucestershire, UK [CD Proceedings Hall, E. T. (1996). Beyond Culture. Anchor Press-Doubleday. Hall, E.T., & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences-- Germans, French, And Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hofstede G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences- - Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions- And Organizations Across Nations. (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks. Sage Publication Hofstede, G. & McCrae R.R. (2004). Culture And Personality Revisited-: Linking Traits And Dimensions Of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 39(2), 55 - 90. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations- Software Of The Mind, Revised And Expanded (2nd Ed). McGraw-Hill. New York Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software Of The Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences: International Differences In Work‑Related Values (2nd Ed). Beverly Hills CA- -SAGE. Holden N. J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Management A Knowledge Management Perspective. Financial Times/Prentice Hall Peppas, S. C. (2001). Sub-cultural Similarities and Differences- - An Examination. Of US Core Values. Cross Cultural. Management. – An International Journal 8 (2), 67-90 Shackleton, V.J. & Ali A.H. (1990). Work-Related Values Of Managers- - Test Of The Hofstede Model, Journal Of Cross Cultural Psychology. 21 (2), 109 -123 Thomas, D.C., & Au, K. (2002). The Effect Of Cultural Differences On Behavioural Responses To Low Job Satisfaction. Journal Of International Business Studies, 31 (2): 310 - 328. Triandis, H.C. (2002a). Motivation To Work In Cross-Cultural Perspective. In J.M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.) The Psychology Of Work: Theoretically Based Empirical Research (Pp. 101-118) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Triandis, H.C. (2002b). Generic Individualism and Collectivism. In M.J. Gannon & K.L. Newman (Eds.) The Blackwell Handbook Of Cross-Cultural Management (Pp.16-45). Blackwell Business. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the Waves Of Culture- -Understanding Cultural Diversity In Business. Nicholas Brealey. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding The Waves Of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity In Business, 2nd Ed. Chicago: Irwin. Trompenaars F & Hampden Turner C (1997). Riding. The Waves Of Culture- - Understanding Cultural Diversity In Business. (2nd ed). Nicholas Beasley Publishing. London Walsham, G. (2002). Cross-Cultural Software. Software Production And Use - - A Structurational Analysis… MIS Quarterly, 26(4); 359-380 Read More