Cultural Considerations in International Project Management - Essay Example

1. Project teams are formed to enable multiple perspectives, a variety of experiences and a broad skill set which has a bearing on the project (Hacker, 2000). The team works towards a common goal and there is a high degree of interdependence. Such teams that comprise of a unique set of individuals are temporary and work together in a controlled environment (Atkins & Gilbert, 2003). These characteristics make it important that the team members are brought together at the earliest possible stage of the project thereby allowing them more flexibility and adaptability, more timely and balanced decisions, and more rapid management response to market and technology. Culture plays a significant role in binding such groups together. International projects are based on informal, boundary spanning networks (Marrewijk, 2007). Since the participants come from diverse backgrounds, the project culture consists of multiple fragmented subcultures. Behavioral variables have a critical role in project success (Shore & Cross, 2005). Various dimensions of culture such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism can influence the outcome of the project. 2. Cross-cultural studies conducted by Hofstede and Trompennars have given rise to cultural dimensions along which value systems have been defined. Since these value systems affect human thinking, feeling, and acting, and the behavior of organizations and institutions (Anbari, Khilkhanova, Romanova & Umpleby, 2000), the project managers or the ‘social architects’ need to have a deeper understanding (Marrewijk, 2007). Hofstede distinguishes between Hofstede distinguishes between individualism (people take care of themselves) and collectivism (people are cared for by the group) which affect relations between people (Shore & Cross, 2005). Different nations score differently on the Individualism Index and hence would affect the functioning of a group as a team. Power distance is the degree to which power is distributed unequally among the members of a group. In high power distance cultures (Malaysia, Mexico) power is shared unequally whereas it is more equally shared in low power distance cultures (Austria, Denmark). A culture can make it members feel comfortable or uncomfortable in certain situations. When the society or its members feel threatened there is a tendency to avoid the unknown and maintain orderliness, structure and laws (Shore & Cross, 2005). This dimension known as uncertainty avoidance helps to understand the extent to which the society tries to control the uncontrollable. Many societies have an unequal distribution of emotional roles between genders which gives rise to the dimension of masculinity versus femininity (Anbari et al). This suggests whether it is a ‘tough’ masculine society or a ‘tender’ feminine society. When the gender roles are clearly distinct, it is a masculine society whereas when gender roles overlap it is a feminine society. Long-term versus short-term orientation is the extent to which a culture can program its members to accept delayed gratification of their needs. Those with long-term oriented cultures also known as future orientation, do not expect immediately results and would prefer to strengthen their position in the market whereas those with a short-term vision prefer to judge the managers based on the immediately results. Some societies have a performance -orientation which is the degree to which the society rewards performance and accomplishment. Each country and each society has a different orientation towards different issues and this has implications for the managers when they have to manage international projects. 3. A thorough understanding of the different dimensions of culture would assist the project manager in different ways. For instance, management structure is a critical success factor especially when collaborations are international in nature. The design of large science projects is further influenced by the political and social agendas set by the government. Those from high power distance culture may attempt to dominate the management process. Geographic distribution or allocation of work at each location is challenging for the manager because both control and integration have to be effective planned. Too much of centralized control can stifle initiative but integration is enhanced. On the other hand, too little control may encourage local initiative but integration is difficult. All parties concerned may have to concede to some extent but such negotiations are time consuming which may have to be built into the project time. Cultures with uncertainty avoidance would prefer centralize control as they are less willing to accept challenges or take initiatives. Collectivist societies would prefer to work in an environment where activities are closely coordinated. Communication is a critical success factor in international projects and the manager must know how to communicate ‘bad news’ and manage performance. For instance, a collectivist society would not like their performance to be discussed openly. Such societies prefer subtle indirect ways of communication like withdrawing some benefits or verbal communication through a mutually trusted intermediary. Maintaining budgetary commitment for long-term projects is a challenge as funding uncertainty can affect projects. Societies with future orientation encourage and reward future oriented behaviour such as planning and investments. Since the US scores low on future orientation, they are usually less committed to development of technology that is unlikely to produce results for long. As costs soar for long-term projects, funding commitments may differ for countries with high uncertainty avoidance. The management would also have address the family and educational needs of the children of staff failing which the staff may prefer to cut short their tenure with the project thereby jeopardizing the completion. Again housing decisions are also governed by the low or high uncertainty avoidance culture. Individualistic societies prefer to find their own social, family environment whereas collectivist societies such as Japan prefer to have a central authority to assume such responsibilities. Pay equity is a major problem in international projects. Pay differences can promote jealousy, mistrust and conflict among employees. It can affect morale and productivity. Individualistic societies may express less concern over pay differences because they usually associate pay with performance and those from culture high in power distance may also accept pay differentials. 4. The Channel Tunnel had several complexities including the cultural differences, which was evident in the areas of professionalism and standards. Both Britain and France used their own standards within their territory which became the root cause of the clash. The differences in culture were evident as the French treated their polytechnics as the cream of their society whereas the English engineers were treated as mechanics (lentz, 2001). While the British hired experienced tunnelers, the French hired unemployed workers and trained them to become tunnelers. Geographic distribution of work impacted the local initiatives and affected integration. The Tunnel constriction started on both sides of the channel with the goal to meet in the middle but lack of a single authority created chaos and confusion. Sydney Olympics, on the other hand had a central leadership in PALT (Project Alliance Leadership Team). They set up their own project culture and the two core values were that the teams would produce solutions that were ‘best for project’ and a ‘no-blame culture’ (Pitsis, Clegg, Marosszeky & Rura-Polley, 2003). They thus could build and maintain a champion team with champion leadership. The team as a whole honored commitments to each other and committed corporately and individually to openness, trust, cooperation, respect, mutual support, honest and flexibility. Communication and information flow was exceptional at all levels. They could deal and resolve all issues from within the alliance. They held induction workshops to ensure that all the stakeholders understood the core values and the meaning of alliance. A study of these two projects suggests that there has to be a central leadership irrespective of the individual cultures and there has to be a separate project culture just as any organization has its own culture. Secondly, the project culture has to be disseminated to the members at the early stage of the project to allow for quick integration. Reference: Anbari, F. T., Khilkhanova, E. V., Romanova, M. V., & Umpleby, S. A. (2000). CROSS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS. . Atkins, S., & Gilbert, G. (2003). The role of induction and training in team effectiveness. Project Management Journal, 34 (2), 48 Hacker, M. (2000). The impact of top performers on project teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 6 (5/6), 85-89 Lentz, C. (2001). The Rise of Professional Government: Evidence from Large-Scale Public Works Projects. Retrieved online 18 July, 2009 from, http://www.politicalreviewnet.com/polrev/reviews/PUAR/R_0033_3352_002_20621.asp Marrewijk, A. (2007). Managing project culture: The case of Environ Megaproject. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 290–299 Pitsis, T. S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M., & Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing the Olympic Dream: A Future Perfect Strategy of Project Management. Retrieved online 18 July, 2009 from, http://clibyg.org/dyn/files/knowledge_items/32-file/Constructing%20the%20Olympic%20Dream.pdf Shore, B., & Cross, B. J. (2005). Exploring the role of national culture in the management of large scale international science projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 55–64 Read More