International Management - Scholarship Essay Example

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT 10th April, 2009 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 WHAT CULTURE IS ABOUT? 3 THEORIESOF NATIONAL CULTURE 3 National Theory of Culture on Kluckohn and Strodtbecks Value Orientation 3 Halls Cultural Contexts Model 4 Ones useful way of characterising differences in cultures is the low context-high-context approach developed by Edward and Mildred Hall. Halls Low-Context-High-Context Approach 4 In a low-context culture, the words used by the speaker explicitly convey the speakers message to the listener. Anglo-Saxon countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and Germanic countries are good examples of low-context cultures. 4 In a high-context culture, the context in which a conversation occurs is just as important as the words that are actually spoken and cultural clues are important in understanding what is being communicated. Business behaviours in high-context cultures often differ from those in low-context cultures. 4 Laurents Cultural Parameters 4 Trompenaars Cultural Dimensions 4 THE CULTURAL CLUSTER APPROACH 5 The cultural cluster approach is another technique for classifying and making sense of national clusters. Similarities exist among many cultures, thereby reducing some of the need to customise business practices to meet the demands of local cultures. 5 Anthropologists, sociologists, and international business scholars have analysed such factors as job satisfaction, work roles, and interpersonal work relations in an attempt to identify clusters of countries that share similar cultural values that can affect business practices. 5 HOFSTEDE’S RESEARCH 5 HOFSTEDE’S CONCLUSIONS 6 RELYING UPON THESE PREDITIONS 7 POINTS MADE IN THE REPORT 7 CONTRIBUTION OF ACADEMIC THEORY 8 CRITICISMS MADE BY McSWEENEY & BASKERVILLE 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 11 WHAT CULTURE IS ABOUT? Culture is defined by various people in various ways. Culture consists of the range of different behaviours that are possessed by the people. Culture is dynamically changing and it is very easily lost. The various internal systems and external environment all effect the culture of the organization and the culture in turn effects the behaviour of human beings. THEORIES OF NATIONAL CULTURE National Theory of Culture on Kluckohn and Strodtbecks Value Orientation Kluckohn and Strodtbeck’s theory of culture points out six dimensions of culture that are there. These dimensions include identifying the nature of people, the person’s relationship to nature, person’s relationship to other people, the modality of human activity, temporal focus of human activity and the conception of space. These six orientations were not clearly defined as well as they were not basically focusing on management. Halls Cultural Contexts Model Ones useful way of characterising differences in cultures is the low context-high-context approach developed by Edward and Mildred Hall. Halls Low-Context-High-Context Approach In a low-context culture, the words used by the speaker explicitly convey the speakers message to the listener. Anglo-Saxon countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and Germanic countries are good examples of low-context cultures. In a high-context culture, the context in which a conversation occurs is just as important as the words that are actually spoken and cultural clues are important in understanding what is being communicated. Business behaviours in high-context cultures often differ from those in low-context cultures. Laurents Cultural Parameters Laurent put forth four parameters about the culture of organizations. These parameters revolve around the Perceptions of the organization as political systems, the Authority systems of the organization, Role formulation systems and Hierarchical relationship systems. This theory highlights the behavior of the manger inside and outside the organization. Trompenaars Cultural Dimensions Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) categorized cultures into a combination of behavioural and value patterns. Their investigation focuses on the cultural dimensions of business executives and this theory lagged homogeneity. Seven various dimension ranging from Universalism versus particularism, Collectivism versus individualism, Neutral versus emotional and Defuse versus specific cultures to Achievement versus ascription, Human-Time relationship and Human-Nature relationship. THE CULTURAL CLUSTER APPROACH The cultural cluster approach is another technique for classifying and making sense of national clusters. Similarities exist among many cultures, thereby reducing some of the need to customise business practices to meet the demands of local cultures. Anthropologists, sociologists, and international business scholars have analysed such factors as job satisfaction, work roles, and interpersonal work relations in an attempt to identify clusters of countries that share similar cultural values that can affect business practices. HOFSTEDE’S RESEARCH Greet Hofstede’s research gives us deep insights into the other cultures as well, so that with the help of this we can be more and more effective when we interact with the people all over the world. If this research is understood and also properly applied, then this information can also reduce the level of frustration. But the most important and one of the useful information is, Geert Hofstede will also give you the “edge of deep understanding” which along with this translates to more and more successful and advantageous results. (Hofstede, 2001, no page) One common example of the cultural differences in the business area is in between the Western countries and the Middle Eastern countries, especially the most common the United States. When concerning and negotiating in western countries, one of the main objective is to work towards a specific target of agreement and of mutual co-operation and mutual understanding and also towards “shake hands” when any particular agreement is reached towards a cultural signal. (Kuper, 1999, no page) This above mentioned is only an example in order to understand that why it is most important and also critical to understand other cultures which you may be practicing or doing with other business. HOFSTEDE’S CONCLUSIONS Hofstede (1991) also explains that the impact of the study of cultural differences has also become a common and also a popular paradigm in anthropology. Ross (1999) also states that the main importance of the characteristics of the national cultural have been acknowledged as one of a main critical situation by many multinational business strategies researchers. Apart from this the work of Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars (1998) has also recently noticed and outlined that how the shared and mutual expectations lead towards any kind of the business success. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1993) research was elaborated and explained from the great work of strodbeck & kluckhorn (1961) and also Hofstede (1984). Culture, according to Trampenaars & Hampden & Turner (1993), can be more easily and can be broadly explained into three major areas: How we can have relationships with all other people. How we relate and create a balance between time relationships and relationships to the environment. Natural attitude towards the environment. Moreover Hofstede’s conclusion also leads us to predict about different kinds of culture related challenges which we might face from Hofstede’s conclusions. We might face different kinds of challenges. We might have difficulty in co-operating with those companies, which are situated in other countries. Apart from this one of the major challenges would be, we might have difficulty while having mutual co-operation with those people who are in other countries. These types of challenges can affect our work base scenario and can also affect our culture system. (Sahlins, 1976, no page) RELYING UPON THESE PREDITIONS We can rely upon these predictions made by Hofstede’s as a source of guidance towards individual behaviour but along with this we should be more and more practical and we should be more concern about our work. Fully relying on these predictions will lead to damage, which will be very much harmful for our organization and also for our culture. As a source of guidance for an individual behaviour is a good thing and this can be beneficial for us but along with this we should be more and more practical. POINTS MADE IN THE REPORT As being a manager of an international team which understands a major development activity. Since I had an experience I would like to make the following points in the report. When working with people from all over the world the biggest barrier which can affect the work is the difference between the cultures. All are from different places having different thoughts and experience and having different concepts and ideas. They do share them with each and every one but find it difficult to agree on them. Mutual co-operation is one of main barrier, which could affect the business work. When working in a team, one should be very much affective and along with this one should have a high calibre to accept each and every one’s contribution, should appreciate them and should think over it. CONTRIBUTION OF ACADEMIC THEORY Academic theory has contributed a lot towards the management of the cross-cultural project teams. I feel that there are many theories, which are inescapably the products of the culture, from where they are stern. (Mataira, 1994, no page) No doubt the research field of the management of cross-cultural has suffered from an absence of those theories, which were capable of explaining the well-defined and important role of the cultures in an organization behaviour. Despite of those efforts, which were used to resolve these issues, there were many methodological problems, which continue in order to resist all the remedies, which were deeply prescribed by the researchers. ( Sudarwan, 1996, 463-481) Hofstede also claimed in order to have a developed and also to have a conceptual frame work which is related to all the fundamental problems of the human society (1980, p.398) so that the globally imposed, the universally human, and also the specific cultural elements will be well recognized. Therefore, Hofstede was not trying to maximize the point of diversity; equalizing cultures, incorporating along with the nations minimized all those varieties in the analysis units. CRITICISMS MADE BY McSWEENEY & BASKERVILLE McSweeney & Baskerville criticized a lot on Hofstede’s theory of the national culture. From all those analysis and theoretical reasoning, Hofstede postulated four main cultural dimensions on which most of the countries differs Uncertainty avoidance Power distance Masculinity Individualism Each of the 40 countries was allocated with scores on these above-mentioned dimensions. In further research Hofstede also increased the number of the countries and also the no of dimensions. These above mentioned dimensions have also had their literature. This brief description and discussion which is the part of the critique of the Hofstede’s theory, when adder to other critiques such as McSweeney & Baskerville (1999) also alerts many researchers in order to be wary of those indices in the cross national studies. The problems, which were thus experienced by other social scientists, therefore have a salutary impact on our research paradigms. ( Volkema, 1999, 59-68) Furthermore the use of the Hofstede’s dimensions by many accounting scholars also raised many problems. What actually it means for the accounting scholars who are actually trying to use them? As it was reminded by Hopwood (1999, p. 378), it is one of the major pressures from trends towards the internationalism, which along with this provides the impetus towards better understanding the cultural specificity as well as the national specificity of accounting. Moreover the use of the Hofstede’s indices of the cultural dimensions also appeared in order to give the cross-cultural studies in the scientific legitimacy and also in the accounting stature, and also within the accounting research. (Sahlins, 1976, no page) BIBLIOGRAPHY Hofstede, Geert, (2001), Culture’s consequences, comparing values, Behaviours institutions and organizations. Sage publications. Hofstede, Geert and Hofstede, 2004, Cultures and Organizations, McGraw Hill USA. Kuper, A, (1999). Culture account, Harvard University press, London. Inkeles, A. (1997). National Character, New Brunswick, N.J. Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and reason, University of Chicago press, London. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s consequences, Beverly Hills, London. Hofstede, G. (1991) culture and organizations, McGraw Hill, London. Mataira, K. (1994) Accountability in Maori society, Journal, 73, 32-33. Sudarwan, M. & Fogarty, T.J. (1996) culture and accounting. Journal 31, 463-481. Yamamura, J.H, Frakes. (1996). A comparison of Japanese and US auditor behaviour. Journal 31, 347-363. Volkema, R.J (1999). Ethnicality in negotiations. Journal 45, 59-68. Read More