Cultural Differences in Engineering Organizations - Essay Example

Cross-Cultural Differences in Engineering Student Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract Culture plays an integral role in shaping behavior and interactions of different people. Most importantly, social groups share the same culture. The scope of this report is the analysis of the cross-cultural challenges within engineering organizations. The report gives an overview of engineering innovation in Japan and Australia, setting the pace for explaining cultural differences in the two countries. The paper begins with an introduction that establishes the pace for the rest of the discussions before delving into the definition and cultural dimensions. Closely following is the difference in engineering innovation between Japan and Australia. The next section looks at the cultural challenges in engineering organizations and the next, how to overcome the problems. The second last part has the conclusion and the very last section has a list of literature consulted when compiling the report. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Impacts of Cross-Cultural Differences on Engineering Organizations 4 Definition of culture 4 Hofstede's Dimension of National Culture 5 Cross-Cultural Difference in Engineering Innovation between Australia and Japan 6 Cross-Cultural Challenges in Engineering Organizations 7 Overcoming the Cross-Cultural Challenges in Engineering Organizations 9 Conclusion 10 Biblography 12 Cross-Cultural Differences in Engineering Organizations Introduction A considerable number of multinational organizations are slowly coming to terms with the idea of globalization and thus the need to understand cross-cultural ethics. Most importantly, engineering fields such as civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical and petroleum engineering fields have evolved to engage the use of diversified workforce obtained from different cultural backgrounds (Di Marco, Taylor & Alin, 2010). Within the contemporary work environments, most managers have to have the understanding of the implications of various cultural backgrounds and the leadership styles that fit in different organizational contexts. For instance, during national disasters, engineers might be drawn from different countries to participate in the recovery process (Di Marco, Taylor & Alin, 2010). Therefore, the understanding of their cultural differences aids in proper management and leadership.According to Abraham (2016), different countries have their engineering cultures that are influenced by the national culture. These cultures may extend into their workplaces when placed in diverse engineering teams. In essence, there are several challenges centered around the cultural differences that affect the practice of engineering just like any other field in the world (Abraham, 2016). Therefore, it is pertinent to understand the challenges and come up with measures to counter the potential effects that have adverse effects on countries, individuals, and the global economy. This paper aims at looking at the cross-cultural differences in engineering ethics through covering the cross-cultural engineering challenges and how to overcome them efficiently. Impacts of Cross-Cultural Differences on Engineering Organizations Definition of culture According to Singh (2011), culture refers to the acquired knowledge used by a group of people to generate social behavior and interpret experiences. Most importantly, as Singh (2011) notes, culture is transferable through learning and helps people to communicate with others in the society. Horii, Jin & Levitt (2005) define culture as a set of shared experiences, meanings, and understandings among members of a particular group, organization, nation, or community. It is, therefore, agreeable that even though the definitions might differ, they all have the same scope and meaning. Culture evolves within the society and is the basis upon which various groups of people are categorized (Singh, 2011). In a nutshell, culture can refer to peoples’ way of life such as dressing, feeding, and how they shelter Hofstede's Dimension of National Culture The understanding of different national cultures is the best foundation for the understanding of the cross-cultural challenges that affect different people such as engineers. Different nations have different cultures that can be categorized based on Hofstede’s dimension of national culture (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). The dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, collectivism/ individualism, and long-term orientation (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Ghemawat & Reiche (2011) marks power distance as the most important cultural dimension, noting that it concerns the extent to which a particular culture reinforces and accepts that power is unevenly distributed in the society. Some countries have high power distance and some that have low power distance. High power distance countries like Malaysia show high acceptance of status differences, and much respect is accorded to those in the authority or the superior. These status differences come through social class, age, and roles, just to mention a few. On the contrary, low power distance countries such as Denmark do not align to the differences in ranks and believe that everybody has an equal chance in decision making, thus disregarding hierarchical levels of power. In a cross-cultural engineering context, this dimension can best explain how coordination occurs in cross-cultural teams that have leaders. The second dimension is individualism versus collectivism. The former cultures have a slightly higher preference for individuals compared to the latter that shows more preference to groups. Individualist cultures or nations such as the UK have loose social frameworks and are characterized by high autonomy, recognition of personal initiative and achievement, and the importance of individual rights (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). On the other hand, the collectivist nations such as Venezuela value the loyalty and goodness of a group. Individualist nations have lower power index compared to collectivist countries that have higher power index (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). The dimension is also useful in explaining differences in engineering decision-making approaches and preferences. Uncertainty avoidance relates more to the extent of which members belonging to a given culture are willing to accept and handle risky or ambiguous situations. High uncertainty avoidance alludes more preference for structure and predictability (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Members of these cultures such as Greece, tend to be reluctant towards risk taking in matters about embracing innovation and technology, changing employers and investing (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). On the other hand, countries with low uncertainty avoidance such as Singapore and Japan, much preference is given to ambiguity and less structured situations, all who favor risk-taking (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). An individual from the latter nations is more likely to embrace new ideas and different views compared to a member of a high uncertainty avoidance country (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Again, this best explains why decision making becomes either smooth or complex in decision driven engineering organizations. Some nations show high dominance based on femininity or masculinity. Masculine cultures like that of Japan show much dominance through strict values such as competition, material success, achievement and assertiveness, all associated with males (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). On the contrary, feminist cultures maintain new values through such acts as personal relationships, quality of life and care for others. A good example is Sweden that has less distinct gender roles and shows more inclination towards the bottom-line performance of employees compared to the focus on the overall well-being of an employee. Lastly, long-term orientation determines how a given nation concentrates on the future, explaining the difference in thinking between the West and the East. Long-term orientation is characterized by thrift, sense of shame, hierarchical dimensions of relationships, and persistence (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). On the other hand, short-term orientation cultures are characterized by personal steadiness and stability, respect for traditions and reciprocation of gifts, favors and greetings. This dimension is important for negotiations and better explain the most effective motivation (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). In the engineering context, the aspect can best explain how reward systems work for different engineers based in the native countries. Cross-Cultural Difference in Engineering Innovation between Australia and Japan Engineering depends on innovation as it involved designs and complex processes. Engineering supports most economies and is integral in the development of nations. Regarding quality of engineering between Australia and Japan, the two countries are at par. However, Japan seems to be more developed regarding learning and production compared to Australia (Kanga et al., 2012). Kanga et al. (2012) note that Japan performs better compared to Australia in all the rankings that determine the Global Innovation Index of nations. Australia has a relatively limited research and development capability compared to Japans well-established R&D (Kanga et al., 2012). However, the two countries face the same challenges in innovation including lack of leadership, lack of resources, intellectual property right issues, weak innovative culture and uninformed clients (Kanga et al., 2012). The differences and similarities between Japan and Australia regarding engineering innovation are an attest that there must be cross-cultural differences in engineering organizations from both nations. Cross-Cultural Challenges in Engineering Organizations Engineers like any other professionals are assigned international duties. Di Marco, Taylor & Alin (2010) opine that the emergence of engineering project networks that are global in nature makes engineers move to other countries either as expatriate workers or as emigrants, case in which they pursue opportunities in other firms (Abraham, 2016). In doing so, engineers collaborate across different teams whose members are drawn from diverse cultural backgrounds. Authentically, the issue of cultural diversity bears the same challenges as those experienced by the workforce in the multinational corporations (Di Marco, Taylor & Alin, 2010). The role and responsibilities of engineers span around design, process reengineering, and selection of relevant technologies. Efficiently accomplishing the missions of engineering organizations mandates for the adoption of the cross-cultural teams that interact with such things as international negotiation, sourcing, and international product development (Wang, 2008). However, the teams never function smoothly but face some challenges such as language barrier, the perception of leadership, risk preferences and communication. The successful incorporation of the engineering teams is essential for ensuring that the organization achieves its purpose. However, just like there are differences in culture, the decision-making process for engineers is challenged by risk preference diversity among the individuals in the teams (Wang, 2008). As an illustration, engineers have to undertake a rigorous evaluation of the solutions by assessing the level of severity, inability to control detection and likelihood of occurrence (Horii, Jin & Levitt, 2005). Even so, many uncertainties arise during feasibility studies, performance specification, and the launch deadlines of the product or prototype designed by the engineers (Wang, 2008). As previously discussed, some nations have high uncertainty avoidance indices and some with low. Therefore, engineers hailing from the latter will be more prone to take many risks about professional decision making compared to those from countries with high uncertainty avoidance index, who are afraid of taking risks (Wang, 2008). As an example, the Japanese, who have a higher uncertainty avoidance index, prefer well-written communication to ad hoc arrangements due to the language barrier (Abraham, 2016). On the contrary, American engineers have low uncertainty avoidance index and take risks when designing their projects. The second cross-cultural barrier that affects engineering organizations is a language barrier. Engineers must communicate and coordinate their activities when working in groups. However, due to diversity, people who speak different languages are brought together for work purposes (Abraham, 2016). In doing so, there arise conflicts when there is no common medium of communication. Often at times, different cultures understand non-verbal cues differently. Some of the words from one language may mean something else in the other language, making it hard for people to communicate (Abraham, 2016). Lack of communication affects the negotiation process and threatens the existence of cross-cultural teams as conflicts arise due to misunderstandings The other barrier that affects engineering organizations is individualism. There are some engineers whose native countries align to individualism. Such engineers often undertake the process of decision making by themselves and are more inclined towards personal success and development (Abraham, 2016). In the same context, the engineers who are collectivists are more likely to embrace teamwork and appreciate those that they are woking with for collective achievement of the set targets (Abraham, 2016). When people from the two groups come together, there is often conflicts leading to poor performance and low morale in the workplace. Still on barriers, some engineers have ethnocentricism when interacting with cross-cultural teams (Abraham, 2016). Such individuals have a deeper conviction that their country’s condition is the best. This is another enemy of cross-cultural teams as it leads to low morale in the workforce. Overcoming the Cross-Cultural Challenges in Engineering Organizations As discussed above, most of the cross-cultural challenges arise due to the cultural diversity that is preferred by all organizations that operate globally. The solution to the above challenges makes it possible for engineering organizations to achieve their objectives efficiently. Furthermore, peaceful coexistence, respect, value for others, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and collective decision-making success rests with the taming of the cultural diversity in the organization (Patrick & Kumar, 2012). Patrick & Kumar (2012) point that the existence of such challenges has elicited research, most of which have come up with different solutions towards taming cultural diversity for the best of the organization. Some of the best methods include training, leadership and management, events and seminars, and policies. The leadership and management systems of an organization are the first call towards the dissolution of cross-cultural challenges. When acting towards taming cultural diversity, management and leadership styles determine how the team performs. The leaders and managers of the team should have an understanding of different cultures depending on the level of cultural diversity within the groups (Bhattacharyya, 2010; Horii, Jin & Levitt, 2005). The team members should also be trained in leadership qualities so that they can have empathy for their leaders in every situation. The leaders often determine the path taken by their followers, therefore, training the leaders on various ways to interact with the team members minimizes the challenge of power distance. It is conclusive that engineering organization need to set aside funds and resources for training and developing the leaders of different cross-cultural teams. Engineering organizations function and run just like other organization; the only difference is the output and operations. Consequently, the engineering groups should arrange for events such as workshops, networking events, orientation programs, webinars, and seminars, to enlighten the workforce on the different cultures that are presented in the organization and the implication (Bhattacharyya, 2010). Such an approach has been successfully used in fostering coexistence and peace among teams with people from diverse backgrounds (Bhattacharyya, 2010). The method proves useful in harmonizing different cultures thus creating cultural cohesiveness for the benefit of organizations and the workforce. The method is useful in overcoming ethnocentrism and cultural relativism that often create chaos and conflicts among working teams. Therefore, engineering organizations aspiring to scale the heights of success should consider adopting the method. Policies and rules have worked well in situations where uniformity within an organization is to be achieved. In fact, such policies and rules reflect in the code of conduct that is a form of organizational culture (Bhattacharyya, 2010). Organizations should come up with policies that define what cultural diversity is and set the pace for cultural interactions within an organization. Erbe & Normore (2015) recommends that, if the policies are breached, punitive measures should be installed in place to remind the culprits that rule are to be followed (Bhattacharyya, 2010). Nonetheless, rewards should be used to award those who understand other people’s culture. However, when developing the policies, organizations must consider engaging the workforce to avoid any chances of resistance (Bhattacharyya, 2010). Besides, training is also mandatory to ensure that everyone understands the policies. Training has proven efficient in dissolving cross-cultural barriers. Humans adapt to situations through life-long learning. As such, just as Erbe & Normore (2015) opine, professional engineers and students should undertake communication skills and language training courses. Training in communication skills enables engineers regardless of their culture to communicate with one another without any barrier, thus stability within teams and the organization (Bhattacharyya, 2010). On the other hand, language training helps expatriate engineers to communicate within their teams effectively without violating the culture of others in the work teams. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be argued that cross-cultural differences are real and exist in engineering organizations just like any other agencies. Some of the challenges that result from cross-cultural differences include risk perception, language barrier, communication problems, and design issues. As illustrated in the above discussion, intervention through training, policies, events and leadership development help in breaking the barriers, optimizing the outcomes of engineering groups. Cultural diversity, which is the cause of all the challenges, can be harnessed for the benefit of such organizations through the interventions. It is only through the recommended approaches that engineering organizations can perform to their best level. The process of engineering decision making is better explained by understanding differences in national cultures. Japan and Australia are slightly on the same footing with regards to engineering innovation. However, Japan is slightly up but have the same challenges as Australia. Therefore, assigned a global project, engineers should use the understanding herein to expand their functionality and increase individual as well as organizational success. Biblography Abraham, L. (2016). Cultural Differences in Software Engineering. ISEC, 28(2), 95-99. Bhattacharyya, D. (2010). Cross-cultural management. New Delhi: PHI Learning Ltd. Caspersen, R. (2002). Encouraging Engineers to Learn Cross-cultural Skills. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 2(1), 135-138. Di Marco, M., Taylor, J., & Alin, P. (2010). Emergence and Role of Cultural Boundary Spanners in Global Engineering Project Networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(3), 123-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE) me.1943-5479.0000019 Erbe, N., & Normore, A. (2015). Cross-cultural collaboration and leadership in modern organizations. Hershey: Business Science Reference. Ghemawat, P., & Reiche, S. (2011). National Cultural Differences and Multinational Business. Globalization Note Series, 2(1), 1-18. Horii, T., Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. (2005). Modeling and Analyzing Cultural Influences on Project Team Performance. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(4), 305-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10588-005-6283-1 Kanga, M., Cockbain, P., Khajeh, M., Fernando, S., McMullan, P., & Stone, J. (2012). Innovations in Engineering Report (pp. 1-22). Engineers Australia Taskforce. Retrieved from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Representation/Research_and_Reports/innovation_in_engineering_report_june_final_web.pdf Patrick, H., & Kumar, V. (2012). Managing Workplace Diversity: Issues and Challenges. SAGE Open, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244012444615 Singh, D. (2011). Managing Cross-cultural Diversity: Issues and Challenges in Global Organizations. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), 3(4), 43-50. Retrieved from http://www.iosrjournals.org Wang, G. (2008). Exploring Cross-Cultural Differences in Engineering Decision Making (Ph. D). Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Read More

In a cross-cultural engineering context, this dimension can best explain how coordination occurs in cross-cultural teams that have leaders. The second dimension is individualism versus collectivism. The former cultures have a slightly higher preference for individuals compared to the latter that shows more preference to groups. Individualist cultures or nations such as the UK have loose social frameworks and are characterized by high autonomy, recognition of personal initiative and achievement, and the importance of individual rights (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011).

On the other hand, the collectivist nations such as Venezuela value the loyalty and goodness of a group. Individualist nations have lower power index compared to collectivist countries that have higher power index (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). The dimension is also useful in explaining differences in engineering decision-making approaches and preferences. Uncertainty avoidance relates more to the extent of which members belonging to a given culture are willing to accept and handle risky or ambiguous situations.

High uncertainty avoidance alludes more preference for structure and predictability (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Members of these cultures such as Greece, tend to be reluctant towards risk taking in matters about embracing innovation and technology, changing employers and investing (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). On the other hand, countries with low uncertainty avoidance such as Singapore and Japan, much preference is given to ambiguity and less structured situations, all who favor risk-taking (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011).

An individual from the latter nations is more likely to embrace new ideas and different views compared to a member of a high uncertainty avoidance country (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Again, this best explains why decision making becomes either smooth or complex in decision driven engineering organizations. Some nations show high dominance based on femininity or masculinity. Masculine cultures like that of Japan show much dominance through strict values such as competition, material success, achievement and assertiveness, all associated with males (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011).

On the contrary, feminist cultures maintain new values through such acts as personal relationships, quality of life and care for others. A good example is Sweden that has less distinct gender roles and shows more inclination towards the bottom-line performance of employees compared to the focus on the overall well-being of an employee. Lastly, long-term orientation determines how a given nation concentrates on the future, explaining the difference in thinking between the West and the East. Long-term orientation is characterized by thrift, sense of shame, hierarchical dimensions of relationships, and persistence (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011).

On the other hand, short-term orientation cultures are characterized by personal steadiness and stability, respect for traditions and reciprocation of gifts, favors and greetings. This dimension is important for negotiations and better explain the most effective motivation (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). In the engineering context, the aspect can best explain how reward systems work for different engineers based in the native countries. Cross-Cultural Difference in Engineering Innovation between Australia and Japan Engineering depends on innovation as it involved designs and complex processes.

Engineering supports most economies and is integral in the development of nations. Regarding quality of engineering between Australia and Japan, the two countries are at par. However, Japan seems to be more developed regarding learning and production compared to Australia (Kanga et al., 2012). Kanga et al. (2012) note that Japan performs better compared to Australia in all the rankings that determine the Global Innovation Index of nations. Australia has a relatively limited research and development capability compared to Japans well-established R&D (Kanga et al., 2012).

Read More