Culture Differences in Organization - Term Paper Example

Culture Differences Name Institution Executive Summary Cultural differences in the organization have become a reality especially in this globalization era. The growing globalization has seen many people cross regional and international borders to work in other countries and cities. As one of the marketable fields today, engineering is one of the careers hit by the reality of cultural differences. Practitioners and academic have been in the recent past engrossed in serious debates about how managers should deal with cultural diversity. Therefore, this report will discuss cultural differences at the work place, with emphasis in the field of engineering. The report discusses the cultural differences between an engineering organization in Australia and one in China. Based on literature review, the paper describes the challenges associated with working in the global community with reference to Cross-cultural awareness including indigenous communities. Also, the report will discuss and provide recommendation on how one can work and relate with people from different cultures. The paper concluded that managers in engineering firms need to create programs, trainings and recruitment strategies which minimize challenges of cultural differences. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Definition and overview of culture differences 4 3.0 Literature review 5 3.1 Culture differences between an engineering organization in Australia and one in China 5 3.1.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimension 5 3.1.2 High versus Low-Context Cultures 7 4.0 Challenges associated with working in the global community with reference to Cross-cultural awareness 8 5.0 Recommendations on how to work and relate with people from different cultures 9 6.0 Conclusion 10 7. References 11 8.0 Appendices 13 1.0 Introduction Globalization has increased the situations of cultural differences at the workplace. In the process, cultural differences as an area of study has earned great attention currently due to global migration and advancement of internet (Nystrom, 1997, p.1). The intensifying globalization has made people of different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs to meet than before. Engineering is one of the fields which have been influenced by globalization. Green et al., (2002, p.1) claimed that engineers no longer work and live within inward-looking market since they have become part of the global economy. Currently, engineers from Australia seek to work in China and vice versa. Even though, engineering organizations require diversity to be open to new ideas, such organizations faces challenges which comes with cultural differences. Therefore, this report reviews literatures to discuss cultural differences at the work place, with emphasis in the field of engineering. The report will also discuss the cultural differences between an engineering organization in Australia and one in China. Furthermore, the report uses two models related to cultural differences which include Hofstede cultural dimension and High versus Low-Context Cultures in analyzing this cultural difference. In addition, the paper describes the challenges associated with working in the global community with reference to Cross-cultural awareness including indigenous communities. 2.0 Definition and overview of culture differences Research on culture has been going on for decades. This means different scholars have come up with various definitions which make this topic even more contentions. Nevertheless, Kawar (2012, p.106) stated that the widely accepted definition is that culture is people’s way of life in terms of beliefs, behavior, language, symbols, values, roles, religion, hierarchies, attitudes, meaning and artifacts among others. On the other hand, cultural differences which is also the topic of this paper is described as the diversities among people who are interacting within the society or organization in terms of languages, cultures, sexual orientations, ethnicities, ages, social classes, abilities, sects and religion (Diversity Dictionary, 1996). Cultural differences among people normally emerge due to the influence and experiences the society subjects them to. The cultural aspects in China are very different with that of Australia due to varying ethnics, social and other regional differences. These affect in a greater way how people interact within their places of work especially when such varying cultures meet within one organization. Since they spend their time doing the same thing over and over, a culture is cultivated. Kuwabara and Smith (2012 , p.24) argued that such influences can be classified into two including ones which act within the early phases of individual formation and ones which emerges later due to learning, education, travel and general exposure. 3.0 Literature review 3.1 Culture differences between an engineering organization in Australia and one in China China and Australia basically belong to different continents. These countries’ cultures have been influenced by different regional culture. China has been influenced Eastern culture whilst Australia has been influenced by the Western culture (Ralston et al., 2008, p.9). The culture different in these countries can be analyzed by use of tools like Hofstede cultural dimension and High versus Low-Context Cultures. 3.1.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimension Hofstede’s cultural dimension analyses culture differences in engineering organization in Australia and China’s in terms of power distance, individualism versus collectivism, indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, femininity versus masculinity and long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2007, p.411). Culture difference can be expressed based on power distance. According to Hosftede (2016), power distance implies to the degree to which people accept power to be distributed unequally. Based on Hostede framework, Australia scores 36%; China has a high score of 80% in terms of power distance as shown in Appendix 1 (Hosftede, 2016). It means that engineers in Chinese organizations expect to be given space to enjoy power within their hierarchies. Engineering is one of the respected professions hence lower rank engineer accept to be dominated by senior engineers. Liu, Zhang and Leung (2006, p.328) argued that in Chinese culture, people respect hierarchies, formal authorities and professions within the organizations. On the other hand, in Australia culture, hierarchies are established for convenience. Both senior and junior engineers are accessible for consultations. Liu, Zhang and Leung (2006, p.337) stated that in engineering organizations in Australia, people do give high regard to hierarchy but rather see themselves as colleagues. In that way, information is shared within the organization. Another dimension which explains the cultural differences in Australian and Chinese engineering organizations is individualism vs. collectivism. Australia score very high (90) in individualism while China scores very low (20) on the same cultural dimension (Hosftede, 2016). Australian engineers like working alone citing speed of projects and individual expertise as their main reason. Hosftede (2016) opined that Australians look at themselves in terms of “I” as opposed to “we”. This culture shows that individuals are ready to take responsibility and initiative. In addition, people who believe individualism thinks that people working in groups are lazy as they rely on the effort and success of others. Australia culture is the opposite of Chinese culture based on this dimension. Hofstede (2007, p.415) posited that China is a collectivist society and people are expected to work as a group as opposed to individual. Engineers in Chinese organization promote team and are defined by “we” (Hosftede, 2016). The collectivism practice has always been shown by Chinese engineers who make road and airports in different parts of the world. This culture is promoted by Chinese engineers because they believe teamwork increases speed of work and people share ideas to increase effectiveness and efficiency. Difference in culture between engineering companies in China and Australia can also been analyzed based on Indulgence. Australia scores highly (71) on indulgence while china has a low indulgence of 24 (Hosftede 2016). Indulgence is described as the degree to where individuals try to control their impulses and desires based on their experiences. Relatively, Hosftede (2016) classified that any form of weak control as “indulgence” whilst stronger control as “restraint”. In this dimension, he classified cultures as either indulgent or even restrained. Since, Australia is ranked higher in terms of indulgence, its engineering organization are characterized by people who are willing to attain their desires and impulses such as having fun and enjoying life. Therefore, despite engineering task being complicated, Australian engineers always seek to make their organization or projects livelier by organizing parties at the weekends or at the end of projects. However, in China, the culture is different since Chinese employees are often restrained and conservative in their action and behavior (Hosftede, 2016). This means the Chinese engineers when at work they majorly focus of tasks and keeps their social life away from the company. Australians working in Chinese engineering companies find it difficult to cope because they regard Chinese as cold people. The difference in such culture naturally reduces morale of employees who are not used to these practices. 3.1.2 High versus Low-Context Cultures Another tool which can be used to analyze culture difference between Chinese engineering organization and Australian ones is the High versus Low-Context model. This model categorizes countries into two regions. According to Hall & Hall (1990), high-context cultures countries majorly consist of ones from Asia, with few from Latin America and Eastern Europe. High context culture countries include China, India, Italy, Japan, Korean, Russian, Africa and Latin America. On the other hand, low-context cultures are majorly countries from Western Europe, North America and Oceania Islands. Countries with low-context culture consist of Australia, Netherlands, the US, Switzerland, Finland, Germany and the UK (Hall & Hall, 1990). Several cultural differences within these regions can affect business negotiations and actions in an interaction between people from China and Australia. Ralston et al., (2008, p.12) claimed that these two regions have different way in greetings, negotiation approaches, gift-giving practices and attitudes about time. Apart from interaction between employees, there are customers who come to buy tools and equipments, and those who come to negotiate for tenders too (Nystrom, 1997, p.2). In such instances, interaction and communication highly take place. Successful interaction depends on respect of people’s culture. For example, Wilson and Brennan (2010) argued that in business meetings, Chinese professionals often greet one another while posing personal questions which demonstrate concerns and considerations as depicted on Appendix 2. The practice is different in Australia because their culture promotes a person’s privacy. It means Australian engineers do not ask the workmates about their personal issues because they consider it disrespectful and indecent to interfere in individual’s private affair (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013, p.872). Research has also found out that business negotiations often involve a strong battle of strategies and wits. Zhu, Nel and Bhat (2006, p.321) asserted that for negotiations to be successful, people involved must be familiar with different cultures of the world. For instance, the Chinese believe in rights due to the influence by the Confucian concepts (Ralston et al., 2008, p.11). When Chinese engineering firm manager negotiates tenders, they pay more interest to equality in bargaining group. Furthermore, Chinese people are not straight forward and spend their time establishing a personal relationship. On the contrary, Australian are straight forward people and do not like spending much time on unofficial talks (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013, p.873). They regard time as something which should not be wasted, but should be spent well and saved. 4.0 Challenges associated with working in the global community with reference to Cross-cultural awareness Studies have shown that despite culture diversities being important to the globalized business environment, people working in firms within a diverse cultural background face several challenges. Ewoh (2013, p. 110) asserted culture differences present challenges such as language, gender discrimination, generational differences and religious differences among others. Just like any other company, communication is crucial to effective operations. Nystrom (1997, p.3) argued that engineers need to be fluent in language to communicate goals and milestone of the project to project manager and the clients. However, since engineers from different parts of the world now work together in one organization, fluency in language is vital to success of engineering tasks. Engineers who might not be fluent in language largely spoken within the organization could have complications in communicating with colleagues and explaining various terms in the field of engineering (Williams, 2007, p.599). Mastery of language can enable the engineers to share emotions and feelings, and communicate complex messages about the task and personal issues. Ralston et al., (2008, p.13) stated that Chinese at times rely on non-verbal communication elements like facial expression, tone of voice, and body language as opposed to spoken words like Australia. Another culture differences engineering firms face today is the gender disparity. Even though today there are women engineers, in a country like China, men still believe that the duty of a woman is to remain in the house, take care of their children, doing house chores (Liu, Zhang & Leung, 2006, p.332). Women in engineering field are not offered the same salary as their male counterparts as they are considered inferior. In Australia the number of women joining engineering firms has kept on growing since 2000. The only concern in Australia is that women have been kept at a lower level job in management such secretarial, reception and customer services (Ewoh, 2013, p.113). High level management and production jobs are still reserved for men. Another culture different challenges engineering firms face today is generational disparity. Modern organizations now have two types of employees; young generation and baby boomers (Barak, 2005, p.72). These generations have different interests, ambitions and aspirations. Most engineering firms still retain older employees because of experience and desire to work in tough situations. However, since competition in the market now leans towards speed and how quick the company can finish the product and deliver, young generations are preferred. In addition, Kawar (2012, p.108) argued that advancement of technology in engineering field has made companies to consider hiring young generation. Young generation are attracted and inspired by technology and their related ethos. 5.0 Recommendations on how to work and relate with people from different cultures Leadership is vital to relating and working with people from different cultures. However, leadership is excised at the top, but form of proper working and relating must be seen up to the lower levels of engineering organizations. Barak (2005, p. 37) contended that training is the first and a major element in working with people from other cultures. Nystrom (1997, p.3) pointed out that the managers of engineering companies can create a training program which inspires cultural intelligence on employees. Relating and working with people from different cultures requires that all the parties develop a common ground. Even though reaching a common ground is sometimes difficult among people from different cultures (Williams, 2007, p.599); it can be reached by focusing on professional part of the job so as not to offend a colleague from another cultural background. Workmates from different cultural background can also seek self-awareness when relating to professional from different cultural backgrounds. Self-awareness means controlling thought, communication and issues one is talking about (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013, p. 161). In this way, it becomes difficult to offend others. Employees must also be tolerant when relating with others. Normally, comments which are made in good faith can be regarded to be humorous or offensive by workmates from other cultures. When such happens, one must remember that sometimes no offensive intention is involved. Lastly, when relating with employees from other cultures, it is not good to make assumption or stereotypes (Kawar, 2012, p.107). Assumptions can be offensive to other members of the organization, hence ruining their relations. For good relations with the general organization, a person should understand who are bestowed with authority of making decision. The argument is based on individualism versus collectivism dimension of culture. While in some cultures decisions are made by just top managers, others encourage collective decision making (Ewoh, 2013, p.113). 6.0 Conclusion A cultural difference is a reality in 21st century in globalized organizations. Engineers from different cultures now meet in different platforms such as universities, forums, and organizations to undertake various tasks. However, the effectiveness of relationship and interaction is hindered by challenges in terms of language, religious, age, gender, and social class differences. Such differences have been studied and recommendations have been set by various scholars and can help managers understand regional cultures before sending engineers to work in China or Australia. This report has demonstrated these differences can be analyzed by Hosfteded cultural dimension and High versus Low-Context models. These models have played a key role in understanding the cultural differences within organizations or working environment. The report has also provided various recommendations that individual engineers and employees can use to effectively relate with their workmates from different cultural background. Therefore, when such cultural differences are well studied and recommendations put into consideration, then the difference no longer becomes a challenge or hindrance in any working environment among people from varying backgrounds. 7. References Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing Diversity towards a Globally Inclusive Workplace. London: Sage Publications. Diversity Dictionary. (1996). University of Maryland Diversity Database. Retrieved 17th Oct 2015 from www.inform.umd.diversity/reference Ewoh, AI.E. (2013). Managing and Valuing Diversity: Challenges to Public Managers in the 21st Century. Public Personnel Management 42(2), 107–122. Green, K.A., López, M., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Diversity in the Workplace: Benefits, Challenges, and the Required Managerial Tools. University of Florida. Hall, E.T., & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences, Chapters 1 and 3. Boston: Intercultural Press. Hosftede, G. (2016). The Hosftede Centre. Retrieved 9th Match 2016 from http://geert- hofstede.com/australia.html Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific J Manage, 24, 411– 420. Kawar, T.I. (2012). Cross-cultural Differences in Management. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), 105-111. Kuwabara, M., & Smith, L.B. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in cognitive development: Attention to relations and objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 113(2), 20–35. Liu, A., Zhang, S., & Leung, M . (2006). A Framework for Assessing Organizational Culture of Chinese Construction Enterprises. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 13(4), 327–342. Nystrom, H.E. (1997). Managing Cultural Differences for Engineers. University of Missouri – Rolla. Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C. and van der Zee, K. (2013). Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 159–175. Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H., & Cheng, Y.K. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 8–26. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 867-897. Wilson, J., & Brennan, R. (2010). Doing business in China: Is the importance of guanxi diminishing? European Business Review, 22(6), 652-665. Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 595-621. Zhu, Y., Nel, P., & Bhat, R. (2006). A cross cultural study of communication strategies for building business relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(3), 319-341. 8.0 Appendices Appendix 1: Hofstede’s cultural dimension as used to compare culture difference between Australian and China Source: (Hosftede, 2016) Appendix 2: High versus Low-Context Cultures Source: (Hall & Hall, 1990) Read More

The culture different in these countries can be analyzed by use of tools like Hofstede cultural dimension and High versus Low-Context Cultures. 3.1.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimension Hofstede’s cultural dimension analyses culture differences in engineering organization in Australia and China’s in terms of power distance, individualism versus collectivism, indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, femininity versus masculinity and long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2007, p.411).

Culture difference can be expressed based on power distance. According to Hosftede (2016), power distance implies to the degree to which people accept power to be distributed unequally. Based on Hostede framework, Australia scores 36%; China has a high score of 80% in terms of power distance as shown in Appendix 1 (Hosftede, 2016). It means that engineers in Chinese organizations expect to be given space to enjoy power within their hierarchies. Engineering is one of the respected professions hence lower rank engineer accept to be dominated by senior engineers.

Liu, Zhang and Leung (2006, p.328) argued that in Chinese culture, people respect hierarchies, formal authorities and professions within the organizations. On the other hand, in Australia culture, hierarchies are established for convenience. Both senior and junior engineers are accessible for consultations. Liu, Zhang and Leung (2006, p.337) stated that in engineering organizations in Australia, people do give high regard to hierarchy but rather see themselves as colleagues. In that way, information is shared within the organization.

Another dimension which explains the cultural differences in Australian and Chinese engineering organizations is individualism vs. collectivism. Australia score very high (90) in individualism while China scores very low (20) on the same cultural dimension (Hosftede, 2016). Australian engineers like working alone citing speed of projects and individual expertise as their main reason. Hosftede (2016) opined that Australians look at themselves in terms of “I” as opposed to “we”. This culture shows that individuals are ready to take responsibility and initiative.

In addition, people who believe individualism thinks that people working in groups are lazy as they rely on the effort and success of others. Australia culture is the opposite of Chinese culture based on this dimension. Hofstede (2007, p.415) posited that China is a collectivist society and people are expected to work as a group as opposed to individual. Engineers in Chinese organization promote team and are defined by “we” (Hosftede, 2016). The collectivism practice has always been shown by Chinese engineers who make road and airports in different parts of the world.

This culture is promoted by Chinese engineers because they believe teamwork increases speed of work and people share ideas to increase effectiveness and efficiency. Difference in culture between engineering companies in China and Australia can also been analyzed based on Indulgence. Australia scores highly (71) on indulgence while china has a low indulgence of 24 (Hosftede 2016). Indulgence is described as the degree to where individuals try to control their impulses and desires based on their experiences.

Relatively, Hosftede (2016) classified that any form of weak control as “indulgence” whilst stronger control as “restraint”. In this dimension, he classified cultures as either indulgent or even restrained. Since, Australia is ranked higher in terms of indulgence, its engineering organization are characterized by people who are willing to attain their desires and impulses such as having fun and enjoying life. Therefore, despite engineering task being complicated, Australian engineers always seek to make their organization or projects livelier by organizing parties at the weekends or at the end of projects.

However, in China, the culture is different since Chinese employees are often restrained and conservative in their action and behavior (Hosftede, 2016).

Read More