International Context of HRM - Essay Example

? International Context of HRM Contents Introduction 2 Theories of Hofstede and Trompenaars compared and contrasted with reference to other relevant theories 2 Three Criticisms of Hofstede’s Work 5 Evaluation of these three criticisms 6 Problems that might confront expatriates coming from one cultural background and working in the other culture 8 Value and relevance of training and orientation activities to prepare expatriate managers 9 Conclusion 11 References 13 Introduction Expatriate managers now have to routinely bridge cultural divides and communicate across apparently insurmountable cultural barriers in order to effectively communicate, negotiate and motivate subordinates and peers belonging to alien cultures (Shenkar 2001). Some authors have put forward a new view that cultural differences as such are not absolute and depend to a large extent on the historical interactions between two countries over a long period. The stereotyping that is an integral part of any culture’s way of viewing alien cultures gets formed out of sustained historical interactions between the two nationalities concerned (Chapman, et al. 2008). This approach, the authors claim, does not negate Hofstede’s four-dimensional approach to categorize a particular culture (G. Hofstede, The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories 1983) but actually supplements it. The authors are firmly of the opinion that mere judging a culture through the prism of Hofstede’s matrix would hardly provide a proper perspective for an international manager. A reasonable knowledge of bilateral history is also extremely necessary to successfully overcome deep seated prejudices, biases and negative stereotypes that seem to cloud judgment in a very big way among participating groups. However, Hofstede’s cultural matrix, which is further crystallized into cultural distance (Kogut & Singh, 1988), surely remains one of the most influential guidelines on this issue. Theories of Hofstede and Trompenaars compared and contrasted with reference to other relevant theories Gerard Hofstede’s Value Survey Model classifies cultures with reference to four dimensions that are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individuality versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity (Hofstede, The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories 1983). Trompenaars on the other hand offers an analytical framework based on seven criterions that are: universalistic versus particularistic, neutral versus affective, specific versus diffuse, achievement versus ascription, individualism versus communitarianism and attitudes towards time and the environment (Trompenaars 1994). Out of these seven dimensions, at least two seem to closely replicate Hofstede’s concept of individuality versus collectivism while somewhat resembling the concept of power distance. Trompenaars’ description of how an individual is accorded status in a society has a close link to Hofstede’s power distance index if one assumes that status is accorded more due to nature rather than achievement. However, the match is not exact as Hofstede also dwells at length on acceptable power distances within a society, an issue that is not discussed by Trompenaars at all. Further, the neutral versus affective criterion postulated by Trompenaars is more of a behavioural feature rather than a criterion itself. The extent to which an individual would express their feelings is more of a dependent on other aspects of a culture instead of being in aspect by itself. Trompenaars’ universalistic versus particularistic aspect that is reflected in a preference for rules and stipulations rather understanding and trust resembles both uncertainty avoidance criterions to a large extent while at the same time having some similarity with individuality versus collectivism as espoused by Hofstede. However, the specific versus diffuse aspect of Trompenaars has no direct parallel in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Trompenaars’ criterion of attitudes towards time rather has a close similarity with Edward Hall's high context and low context culture model which is based on communication framework. This theory puts more emphasis on the context in which communication takes place and this context has varying degrees of importance and relevance in different cultures. In a low context culture spoken words tend to be more explicit and directly convey the message to the person whom it is addressed to while in a high context culture the context is spoken words are equally important as the context in which they are uttered (Hall and Hall 1997). Trompenaars’ criterion of attitudes towards environment seems to bear close resemblance to the human – nature relationship as described in Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s ‘Value Orientations’. Kluckhohn and Strodbeck identified six basic cultural orientations: nature of people, relationship to nature, relationship to other people, modality of human activity, focus of human activity and conception of space (Kluckhohn and Strodbeck 1961). Upon applying the criterions espoused by Hofstede and Trompenaars in classifying several countries, it was found that Japan and India both seemed to be rather weak in the matter of individualism while Denmark, UK and USA are more markedly individualistic in nature. But, there are certain countries as Mexico, Greece and Spain that return differing scores and it is rather difficult to explain away these differences simply by highlighting the differences in criterions used by Hofstede and Trompenaars. Hodgettes and Luthans feel that different outcomes by applying Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ indexes might be due to the different time frames in which these two indexes were postulated and the cultural changes that have taken place during the intervening period. These authors possibly thereby subtly indicate that Hofstede’s theories are gradually becoming out of date (Hodgetts and Luthans 2006). A case in point is that of Mexico’s gradual integration into global economy is steadily lessening the impact of communitarian values in that society. As one author feels, cultures are always dynamic entities that evolve, though slowly, over time. Hence, what might have been an acceptable characterisation in 1960s or 1970s might not be correct in the current context (Grover and Vriens 2006). It might be of some interest to note that even though Russia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia had a communist past, these countries classified as relatively individualistic by Trompenaars. He later introduced another criterion of equality versus hierarchy where a hierarchical culture is described as one that centers on a leader who is supposed to know the best and has near absolute authority. This approach has strong similarities with Hofstede’s power distance criterion. While USA and UK have comparatively egalitarian cultures according to Trompenaars, these countries are low on power distance according to Hofstede, and while France and Spain are relatively more hierarchical according to Trompenaars, they are high on power distance criterion according to Hofstede. But there are marked difference in how these two authors classify Germany. While Hofstede’s research indicates Germany to be low on power distance, Trompenaars’ findings indicate Germany’s corporate culture to be decidedly hierarchical. Three Criticisms of Hofstede’s Work One of the most severe drawbacks of average is that oftentimes it is a piece of statistic that has no or very little practical significance. Hofstede averaged massive amounts of national data since it was not only a swift but also a less costly alternative but the results reached through such an approach threw up mean figures that perhaps were not so meaningful for analytical purposes (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2005). Hofstede showed an inherent bias towards oversimplifying and categorizing complicated social and cultural attributes and ignored the very important fact that cultural responses are the result of the interplay of a vast multitude of interrelated and mutually dependent factors. The other issue he overlooked was personal value systems of individuals also moderate their responses to workplace challenges and many a time such responses do not fall in line aggregative cultural perspectives (French 2007). An IBM employee operates in an environment that has carefully nurtured by the organization to keep it free from cultural biases to the maximum extent possible. Hence, can such an employee be considered a typical representative of the cultural milieu they belong in their personal lives? Would it be possible for an IBM employee to properly articulate their cultural inclinations especially if such inclinations were in contravention of corporate culture of the company and are in conflict with their professional loyalties? The questionnaire designed by Hofstede is probably not able to extract the true cultural trends (McSweeney 2002). Evaluation of these three criticisms Even if one accepts the fact that culture as defined by Hofstede has certain drawbacks in being not precise and concrete (Ailon 2008) one must remember that he never wanted or attempted to write definitive texts on diverse cultures that exist in different corners of the globe. All that Hofstede attempted was to provide a sort of a handbook for managers and organizations that operate in cross-cultural scenarios. If Hofstede’s work is viewed from through that prism, the criticism that he based his theory on averages hardly has any significance since he never claimed that his theory is potent enough to accurately forecast the cultural and behavioral traits of every individual belonging to a particular culture. For an example, Malaysia is a country that has high power distance but does that mean that each and every single Malaysian would feel contented in a highly regimented managerial pyramid? Most certainly it does not mean so as what an individual would like or dislike or how their reactions would be to a particular issue would to a large extent depend on their individual value systems which would to a certain extent be surely modified by a country’s general cultural inclinations and biases. Thus, Hofseted’s scores are merely indicative of possible traits and trends that might be visible in people belonging to a particular culture (Drucker 1992). The criticism that Hofstede had categorized social attributes into masculine and feminine types without bothering to acknowledge the fine layers of intervening inclinations is perhaps rooted in deep seated gender biases and taboos against sexuality that is common in many cultures rather than any logical reasons. Many writers on cross cultural interactions refer to these attributes as Quality of Life meaning femininity and Quantity of Life meaning masculinity. One must admit, however, that it practically impossible to clearly demarcate where culture ends and traits of individual personality begins. It might very well be possible that two managers belonging to two completely diverse cultures have similar personality traits and might respond in a similar manner in a given situation (Hofstede and McCrae 2004). The criticism that an IBM employee is not a representative sample of a culture also seems rather unfounded when one realizes that Hofstede’s main aim was to provide a handbook to global companies so that they are able to effectively negotiate the treacherous undercurrents of cultural pushes and pulls and reach their targeted figures during a financial year. Hofstede was not providing a psychological insight into how people of different cultures thought, behaved and reacted. He was just providing some rough estimates so that global companies do not make gross error while maneuvering a foreign terrain. IBM was the readily available source of people from diverse cultures. So, Hofstede conducted a research among its employees to get the indications that he was looking for. The broad indications he could identify were enough for his purposes. Problems that might confront expatriates coming from one cultural background and working in the other culture Chapman, Mattos, Clegg and Buckley have analysed in detail the cultural differences between Germany and Poland and United Kingdom and Poland and also gathered voluminous data about how people from each country viewed those belonging to the other two countries (Chapman, et al. 2008). The stereotypes that exist in minds of people from each country have been studied against the backdrop of bilateral relations between these countries and the authors have come to the conclusion that historical interactions did play a very significant role in shaping opinions in each country. Poland and Germany had a history of violent confrontations and Germany had a long history of condescending Poles and perhaps because of that, Poles view Germans in an overly negative light. United Kingdom did not have much of an interaction with Poland over the centuries and Poles also do not hold British in as much negative light as they hold the Germans. However, Hofstede’s cultural scores for UK and Germany are fairly close to each other (Nasierowski and Mikula 1998). Therefore, Poles should view Germans and British in almost similar light if Hofstede’s scores were the only criterion to judge a nation’s cultural affinity. But in reality it is not so. Therefore, all those that are actually managing people belonging to other cultures should do well to have a fair idea about the historical interactions the two countries have had so that they are able to properly appreciate the attitudes and preconceived biases and stereotypes the subordinates they are supposed to motivate and the peer group they are supposed to coordinate and cooperate with might have in their minds. A tactically superior management will also try to post managers in those countries that have the least negative impression about people of the country from which the expatriate hails. That would allow the expatriate manager to work in an environment that is least hostile and the company would thus be able to reap the maximum possible benefits. But such an accurate match would be possible if the top management takes the pains to study in depth the historical relations between the two relevant countries. In present day world expert advice on these issues are readily available and they usually do not cost a fortune. Value and relevance of training and orientation activities to prepare expatriate managers There are two approaches to cross cultural negotiating and communicating styles. The first approach is to lead a novice through the serpentine intricacies of negotiating and effectively communicating in specific countries while the other approach identifies certain basic elements in negotiating and communicating styles and evaluates how those elements are perceived in different cultures. As it is nearly impossible for any executive to acquaint themselves with all cultures prevailing in the world, the best way is to acquaint oneself with problem areas where differences may crop up in negotiations and communications owing to cultural differences. This is probably the best way to prepare for negotiations and communications on one day at Dubai and the other day at Tokyo. To help executives operating across diverse cultures scholars have developed checklists and frameworks that could be applied effectively. There are ten negotiating and communicating factors and the possible range of responses are (Salacuse, Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results 1998): 1. Ultimate goals of negotiation (contract or relationship?); 2. Agreement building process (bottom up or top down?); 3. Attitudes to the negotiating process (win/win or win/lose?); 4. Agreement form (specific or general?); 5. Personal styles (formal or informal?); 6. Emotionalism (high or low?); 7. Styles of communication (direct or indirect?); 8. Time sensitivity (high or low?); 9. Negotiating team organization (one leader or consensus?); and 10. Risk taking (high or low?). Once an expatriate manager is aware of these factors it becomes that much easier for them to understand the negotiating and communicating styles of their counterparts and subordinates and more importantly how their negotiating and communicating styles appear to the people belonging to diverse cultures. This helps them not only to understand more lucidly the actual intentions of the other party but also to modify their responses accordingly. However, it must be remembered that negotiating and communicating styles are conditioned by several factors other than culture. These factors include, among others, personalities of the parties involved, bureaucracy, previous business experience and most importantly, the agenda of negotiation and communication. If an executive is predetermined to approach a negotiation in an integrative manner to solve certain long standing misunderstandings or disputes might respond in a confrontational manner if faced with hostile counterparts. Cultural differences often cause differences in perception about the desired goal of negotiation or communication. As for example, while American executives view arriving at a signed contract as the ultimate goal of any negotiation where the signed contract embodies the rights and duties that legally bind the negotiating parties, Japanese, and to large extent Chinese too view creation of a relationship between two sides as the primary goal of any negotiation. For them the relationship is far more vital than the written and signed contract. So, an American executive should be aware of these nuances if they are to be successful at negotiations with Japanese or Chinese counterparts (Pye 1982). Negotiating attitudes also largely depend on cultural propensities and of course individual personalities. Generally every individual views negotiation as a process where either both the participating members can gain (win-win) or only one of the participating members can gain (win-lose). Those who view negotiation as a win-win process consider it as a collaborative activity where each participating member has to be taken on board while those who view it as a win-lose process consider it as a confrontationist activity where one has to lose so that the other can win. Scholars who have studied negotiation process in detail categorize these two different approaches to the negotiation as integrative bargaining (win-win) where every member involved in the process feels that their individual goals are compatible with goals of others and distributive bargaining (win-lose) where participating members feel their personal goals are incompatible with goals of others. Culture plays a big role in modulating what would be an individual’s approach towards negotiation process. One must admit that a manager’s most important job is to negotiate; be it with subordinates, peer groups, superiors or outside entities. Therefore it is essential for an expatriate manager to have a fair idea about how their subordinates, peer groups and superiors view the entire negotiation process. If it is known beforehand an expatriate manager might prepare themselves in a much better way to get the most out of a negotiation process. It has been observed in a survey that almost all Japanese believe that negotiation should be an integrative bargaining process while less than two-thirds of the Spanish feel so. For them, negotiation is nothing but a distributive bargaining process. However, France, the lone exception among European countries believes, much like India and China that negotiation should essentially be an integrative bargaining process (Salacuse, Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results 1998). Thus an expatriate manager must be adequately made aware of these nuances which vary widely from culture to culture as such knowledge and training is absolutely imperative for functioning efficiently (G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organisations: Software of the mind 1991). While only two aspects of cultural difference that may affect negotiating and communicating styles is discussed here, it is obvious that any executive wishing to succeed in an international milieu must be acquainted about all the ten aspects and, above all, be forever ready to respect alien cultures and customs. Conclusion Culture can and does influence in major manner certain key areas of a negotiation or communication process. A proper knowledge of cultural differences would enable an expatriate manager to better understand the behaviour and responses of the other side and can also provide clear indications as to how gaps and divides created on account of cultural differences can be effectively bridged (Salacuse, Implications for practitioners 1993). The other issue that must not be overlooked is that professional and occupational culture together with a country’s culture shapes the attitudes of people. Thus, when professionals from different cultures face problems of surmounting cultural divides and issues of stereotyping, these professional would do well to fall back on their professional culture to try and bridge the invisible wall that has been erected between them on account of cultural disparities. References Ailon, G. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture's Consequences in a value test of its own design." The Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 2008: 885-904. Chapman, Malcom, Hanna Gajewska-De Mattos, Jeremy Clegg, and Peter Jennings Buckley. "Close neighbours and distant friends—perceptions of cultural distance." International Business Review 17, 2008: 217–234. Clegg, S., M. Kornberger, and T. Pitsis. Managing and Organisations: An introduction to theory and practice. London: Sage, 2005. Drucker, P F. "There's more than one kind of team." Wall Street Journal, February 2, 1992. French, R. Cross-Cultural Management in Work Organisations. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2007. Grover, Rajiv, and Marco Vriens. The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses and Future Advances. Sage Publications, 2006. Hall, E. T., and M. R. Hall. "Key concepts: Underlying structures of culture." In International Management Behavior, by H. W. Lane, J. J. DiStefano and M. L. Maznevski. Cambridge, MA.: Blackwell, 1997. Hodgetts, Richard M., and Fred Luthans. International Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill, 2006. Hofstede, G, and R R McCrae. "Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture." Cross-Cultural Research, 2004. Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991. Hofstede, G. "The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories." Journal of International Business Studies, 1983: 75-89. Kluckhohn, F. R., and F. L. Strodbeck. Variations in Value Orientations. New York, NY: Peterson Publishing, 1961. Kogut, B, and H. Singh. "The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode." Journal of International Business Studies 19(3), 1988: 411-432. McSweeney, B. "Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis." Human Relations, Vol. 55 (1), 2002: 89-118. Nasierowski, W, and B. Mikula. "Cultural dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstede's indices." Organisation Studies 19 (3), 1998: 495-509. Pye, L. Chinese negotiating style. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain, 1982. Salacuse, J. W. "Implications for practitioners." In Culture and negotiation, by Guy Olivier Faure and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (eds.). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993. Salacuse, J. W. "Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results." Negotiation Journal, 1998: 221-240. Shenkar, O. "Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences." Journal of International Business Studies 32(3), 2001: 519-535. Trompenaars, F. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin, 1994. Read More