Organizational Culture in Different Countries and Regions - Term Paper Example

? Organizational Culture in Different Countries and Regions Organizational Culture in Different Countries and Regions In a study by Javidian & House, they contend that the business world may be increasingly getting global but that does not mean that the cultural differences will disappear or diminish. In fact, they reported that with the removal of economic barriers in doing business, it is now the cultural barriers that could pose as the greatest barrier in meeting new challenges and opportunities in business (2002). True, at some point there may be some convergence but more often than not, the idiosyncrasies of their differences will only be amplified. Studies have showed that organizational cultures are influenced by national cultures (Terpstra & David, 1991). A business traveler once quipped about this national culture that influences organizational culture that could be inimical to conducting business if not properly understood. Taken negatively, this culture can be used as a shield and process that people withdraw to when they intend to sideline their common sense. It is a form of groupthink or herd mentality that could be used to shrug responsibility (Savio, 2007). But when properly understood, the barriers of cultural differences can come down and the authenticity of the people emerges transcending the old collective and herd thinking enabling one to find homogeneity and common ground to do business. But understanding the eccentricity or idiosyncrasy of a particular culture can be a challenge and may even take some time to be understood and perhaps after committing some blunders and faux pas that could cost the business itself. Seemingly innocuous behaviors, when not properly understood can be costly to the one doing the business who is unaware of the national culture that is being reflected in the bigger organization. To illustrate, a businessperson attending a dinner by a Chinese host may be aware that he has to be gracious being familiar of guanxi(Hwang, 2009). But knowing the host or Chinese counterpart is not enough (Bedford, 2011). Little things such as not following the nuances of dining protocols may even inadvertently offend the business counterpart. In the example cited, the guest, in his effort to be gracious to his host, ate every food that was served to him (there are 12 courses in a Chinese meal) even if he was full with the hope of getting the impression that he is an appreciative guest. Only to be confounded that the host’s warmth disappeared and turned cold as the evening ended. It took some time for the guest to realize that in Chinese context, cleaning up your plate meant that the host did not feed you enough and that is quite offensive in doing business in Chinese context (Balderrama, 2010). Another example is the customary bringing of whisky to a Japanese counterpart which can be considered as a thoughtful gift but is offensive to Dubai nationals (Tulshyan, 2010). To better understand particular cultures and how they reflect and differ in the larger culture of an organization in different countries, Hoftstede formulated a cultural assessment tool whereby dimensions of one’s cultural strength can be assessed by assigning a scale ranging from 0 to 100 (Hoftstede, n.d.) . This tool of Hofstede is a popular tool among managers who would like to understand another culture apart from their own. The five cultural dimensions of Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-Term Orientation; Hofstede’s five dimensions of culture in details are (MCCULLIGH, 2010); Small vs. large power distance – This refers to how a society handles inequalities and the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. Individualism vs. collectivism – Behavior towards community. The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups or are expected to look after themselves and self-actualize. Masculinity vs. femininity) – Behavior and roles distributed according to gender. (This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede’s work to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life because one of the notable findings in the IBM studies revealed that in ‘masculine’ cultures, people (whether male or female) value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions whereas in ‘feminine’ cultures, people (again whether male or female) value relationships and quality of life. Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance – This refers to the level of need for structure. Cultures with low uncertainty avoidance tend to accept risk and change and prefer implicit or flexible rules and guidelines. Long vs. short term orientation – How much society values long-standing, as opposed to short term, traditions and values. Cultures with high long-term orientation place strong importance on family, discipline and social obligations. (Note: This fifth dimension was added in a study that took place in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese employees and managers.) GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) on the other hand rank the importance of a certain cultural dimension according to a regional cluster giving us a snapshot of the cultural peculiarity of certain regions such as Asia, Middle East, Europe, etch. Globe model covers the nine cultural nine dimensions which are Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Humane Orientation (Grove, 2005. To get a holistic perspective on how organizational culture as dictated by its national culture differs around the world, major regions in the world shall be analyzed comparing each with other regions. Mexico (Latin America Cluster) Mexicans are generally accepting of authority because it is a paternalistic society. The father or a leader is expected to be benevolent among its subordinates and it is incumbent upon the subordinates to follow the authority figure. Compared with Hoefstede scale, this perspective is consistent because Mexico scored 81 on the scale and ranking high on GLOBE cultural model. Mexicans in general are risk averse and does not like uncertainties. Being such, Mexicans are more inlined to proven ways and are less likely to try new methods until it has proven to work. As a result, Mexicans are resistant to change especially if the present system is already comfortable adn proven to work. This point of view coincided with Hoefstede and GLOBE ranking with Mexico scoring 82 on the Hoftstede scale. Mexicans also are never individualist and takes pride in belonging to certain group or even just being a Mexican. A typical Mexican usually identifies with his or her group, not necessarily family, which can be seen in Mexican communities and gangs in the US. This perspective is consistent with Hoefstede scale with Latin Americans scoring low on individualism indicating that they are a collectivist society. Mexicans also rank fourth in the Globe ranking cultural model next Confucian Asia and South East Asian clusters. Philippines (South East Asian Cluster) The Philippines share some trait with Mexico it being a colony of Spain for more than 300 years. It scored higher on Hoefstede scale (94) indicating the greater disparity of power inequality. Filipinos share Latino’s acceptanc of authority as the economic and political power in the country is confined to an elite few which explains the huge power distance between the haves and have nots and those who are powerful and powerless. Globe ranking model also places South East Asian countries to be high on power distance indicating that South East Asians generally accepts that there is inequality in their society. While scoring somewhere in the middle of the Hofstede scale (44), Filipinos are generally risk takers. They even have a word for it for doing something uncertain but would rather do it anyway which is “bahala na” meaning “come what may”. Filipinos also love comfort and security as a people, and they would not hesitate to take chances if it will make things better. Filipinos tend to be collectivist only when they are in a foreign place as they tend to gather around especially in a foreign country which is observable in the US. Indeed this is true because Philippines scored a low of 30 in Hofstede individualism and third highest in GLOBE ranking. China (Confucian Asia) China also scored high in Hoefstede measurement (80) and the respondent elaborated that as a society, they put emphasis on the general good of society and family and it follows that they should accept authority to serve that end. This can be traced n Chinese history which is replete with dynasties that operate similar to a monarchy where the subjects are expected to be subservient to their rulers. This is also validated by GLOBE ranking where Confucian Asia is high on power distance. Of the three respondents interviewed, China scored the lowest on uncertainty avoidance which is 30 indicating that Chinese are generally risk takers. This explains why there are Chinese anywhere in the world in their effort to find a better pasture to improve their lives. As a people, Chinese are hopelessly collectivist people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family and society. This explains why there are child and slave workers in China because of this trait to sacrifice themselves so that their family may have better lives. Confucian philosophy is also strongly interwoven in Chinese society and this explains why the Chinese are generally open to society’s inequality. Unlike Scandinavian countries and Americans whose leadership is informal and collaborative, Chinese management style is authoritative and directive. Conflicts are also avoided by Chinese compared to Americans who accept it as an inevitable in the workplace. Europe Europe is somewhat ambivalent with Hoftstede scale but nevertheless share some trait with each other. To illustrate, two countries will be picked up which are Germany and Sweden. Both have strong quality ethic reflected with the products they produce such as Mercedes Benz, BMW etch. They have moderate power distance and tend to work in teams to produce collaborative quality work. This is more pronounced in Sweden where organizations are generally flat and has few management levels. Both are individualistic valuing freedom, personal space and privacy. Swedish however differ with Germans in terms of perspective in life where Germans value material possessions and achievement while Swedish are more particular with the quality of life more than quantity of material possessions. Unlike their Asian counterparts where organizations are structured and respectful of authority, Swedish practices an egalitarian culture where the hierarchy tends to be informal, pragmatic and open. Saudi Arabia (Middle East) Saudi Arabia scored exceptionally high on Hofstede model scoring a high of 95 which means that people accept the hierarchical order of society which needs no further justification. The person interviewed expressed that this is so because they are ruled by a monarchy, where government comes from a single family in a society that stresses so much religion. The respondent explained that is in accordance with Sharia Law that there is an order in society as dictated by Allah that needs no justification. The findings of Hofstede model is consistent with the GLOBE with Middle East countries ranking high in Power distance. United States United States may be a melting of different cultures not only that it is welcoming as a society but also due to its companies that operates globally. Despite this, United States still has organizational cultures that are distinct from other cultures. Among these is individualism which United States has the highest scoring 91 at Hoftstede scale. This translates to American’s aversion with rigid rules which is the opposite in China. US shared Scandinavian countries moderateness with power distance and uncertainty avoidance which means that the working environment are generally cooperative despite the diversity of its workforce. US also rank second highest in masculinity. It does not mean that American society is chauvinistic that spills over to organizations but rather it values assertiveness and competition even with the female workforce (who are veering away from the conventional roles). Unlike the Mexicans who are averse to change, chang is an accepted fact and an everyday reality in american Organizations. Conclusion In the analysis of how national culture reflects in the organization, it was found that their correlationship is significant and indeed varies from one country or even region to another. This analysis however leads to a greater understanding of another’s culture that will enable businesses to meet challenges and opportunities despite the diversity either in the workforce or business partners. Because as Savio puts it, there after understanding these cultural differences and transcending beyond them, there will always be common ground and a sense of homogeneity where people can work and achieve their objectives together. References Balderrama, Anthony (2008). Business Etiquette Around the World. Careerbuilder.com. Retrieved at http://www.careerbuilder.com/Article/CB-1006-The-Workplace-Business-Etiquette-Around-the-World/ Bedford, O. (2011). Guanxi-building in the workplace: A dynamic process model of working and backdoor guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 149-158. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0895-9. Grove, Cornelius (2005). Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide. Retrieved at http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-intro.html Hoftsted, Geert (nd). The Hoftstede Centre. Retrieved at http://geert-hofstede.com/the-hofstede-centre.html Hwang, D. B., Golemon, P. L., Chen, Y., Wang, T., & Hung, W. (2009). Guanxi and business ethics in confucian society today: An empirical case study in taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 235-250. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9996-5 Javidian, M; House, R.J. (2002). Leadership and cultures around the world: findings from Globe An introduction to the special issue. Journal of World Business, (37):1-2. McCulligh, Heather (2010). The Business of Culture: How Culture Affects Management Around the World. Halogen Software. Retrieved at http://www.halogensoftware.com/blog/the-business-of-culture-how-culture-affects-management-around-the-world/ Savio, C. F. (2007). Creating and preserving a business culture. Quality Progress, 40(8), 36-41. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214761736?accountid=32521 Terpstra, V.; Davd, K. (1991). The cultural environment of business (3rd ed.). Cincinnati:South-Western Tulshyan, Ruchika (2010). Quirkiest Cultural Practices From Around The World. Forbes. Retrieved at http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/business-travel-etiquette-forbes-woman-leadership-global.html Read More