Cross-Cultural Management of Trompenaars and Hofstede - Case Study Example

Introduction Different cultures have different national cultures that call for different styles of management. Differences exist between people in organizations due to the differences in the culture of the country of origin. Every country has a set of unique characteristics and the citizens of the country carry this culture to the organizations where they work. This national culture is made up of factors like customs, religion, language, beliefs ethnic heritage, rules and boarders. House, R.J., Dorfman, P., Gupta, V. (2004). Different countries display differences in these factors. In this paper an evaluation of the cross cultural management research of Trompenaars and Hofstede will be done in relation to the national cultures of the UK and Germany. National culture Culture refers to the way of living of a people basically referring to the way people carry on in their daily life. Each and every group of people has its own culture and this is what creates a difference between various groups of people. National culture is commonly used to refer to or is described as the shared programming of the mind of the people nationally. This makes one country unique from another. Individual countries have various cultural rituals as well as cultural activities. This includes the way that these people understand and think about the world, the values and beliefs they hold. The differences in national culture are more often reflected in the basic solutions given to the organisational issues and problems in various countries. The various national cultures normally have differences in the preferred ways towards the organizational structure as well as different modes of motivating the employees. For instance, some organizations minimise on the options appraising employee performance, managing the organization by objectives, and the use of strategic management. National culture is not an individual affair but rather a function of a group. The boundaries between countries usually put boundaries for national culture. This form of culture is usually instilled in individual's right from birth. The national culture has everything in regard to what is perceived as proper, polite behaviour in that particular country. This includes for example how to behave in front of the family, colleague's strangers, family. Germany's National culture Germany is a culturally diverse state. German is the language spoken by almost every citizen. Other cultural groups found in Germany include the Frisians, Danes, Sorbs, and Gypsies; these are the people who are non-Germany minorities. The religious beliefs observed in Germany include Protestants which has the largest percentage of approximately 38%, the Catholics who form a proportion of 34% and a small portion of Jews. Islam has also become common from immigrants. The culture of this country has been influenced by the middle ages. The philosophers from Germany have assisted in shaping the culture of this nation. There is a lot of influence by the guild system of the medieval times. This system has today seen Germany attain an apprenticeship system. The people have a pride in their occupations and the organizational managers need not work too hard on their motivation. The country is rated as having very productive personnel but does not have good leadership skills. Magala, S. (2005). The united Kingdom The UK is made up of North Ireland and the Great Britain. The United Kingdom is culturally diverse wit a total population of close to 58,587,194 people. Majority of these people live in the suburban and urban areas. The UK is home to different cultures especially due to immigration. The people have their origins in China, the Caribbean, Africa, India, South Asia, Pakistan and continental Europe. The indigenous people include the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Roman, and the Pre-Celtic. The dominant language spoken here is English. Other languages include Scots aw well as the insular Celtic Languages. The religious beliefs are also diverse with reports of having Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. Some of the people do not have a belief in God. Hofstede and Trompenaars cross cultural management research These two researchers studied management across different cultures. They developed different culture types and approaches to culture. Further, they also classified and differentiated the various countries globally. Here seems to be quite a complex relationship between the management in the organizations and culture. This is because the both of these factors are dynamic and evolving constantly by the day. Pure cultures do not exist in organizations; rather the organizations are rich in cultural diversity. Individual countries are made up of people with mixed cultures. According to Trompenaars, the following dimensions classify cross cultural management; Universalism v particularism - This is used to describe what is more essential in an organization between relationships and rules. Individualism v. collectivism - Measures when people in an organization function and operate as individuals or as a group. Neutral v. affective - This explains whether people display their emotions in organization affairs for instance in leadership, decision making and management generally. Specific v. diffuse - This looks in to the issue of responsibility and whether it is specifically assigned to the people or they just accept it diffusely. Achieved status v. ascribed status - the people in the organization may receive status and recognition or they may work their way to proving that they deserve it. Time orientation - some people are able to do quite a number of things at the same time while others can only do one thing at a time Sequential time v. synchronic time - The people in the organization may be oriented more towards the future, the present or the past. Internal v. external orientation -This describes whether the people in the organization are controlled by the internal and external environment or they are in control. The management styles practised in organizations need therefore to be hybrid in order to effectively handle and accommodate the different culture types. For example the German has a culture of expertise and professionalism and they are second to none. They are however overtaken by the culture in the United Kingdom who are better leaders. If the two culture typologies are differentiated and segregate such that each acts on its own one wi9ll miss out on what the other culture has. The hybridization of culture types is hence useful. According to the research conducted by Hofstede and Trompenaars, culture types have been classified and the suggestion of having the typologies as the measure of culture put forward, Hofstede, G. (2001). For example the researcher Trompenaars developed different categories of countries as either having a task -oriented style of leadership or a leadership that has a style with a relationship-leadership orientation. This approach simply reduces the complexity of leadership to merely two variables. He same approach by Trompenaars makes the recommendation with the effect that a phenomenon as complex as culture be approached and perceived from the direction of whether the management style preferred is task - oriented or relationship oriented. This has simplified cross cultural management to a large extent and neither life nor management can be that easy. The choice here has been limited to only two styles and a manager in a culturally diverse organization may prefer to have both orientations to management at the same time. The manager may even use the both styles of leadership over a limited duration of time and then cease to use it after that. At the same time, if the various cultures for instance the culture of Germany and that of the United Kingdom were to support one of the styles recommended by Trompenaars, the two different nations due to differences in cultures would perhaps support different orientations of leadership and management. From the research and recommendations, it is not possible to have a clear cut-line of which culture type would be given clusters that have cultural similarity. For example, in the United Kingdom, people prefer to have communication types that are indirect with plenty of emphasis on courtesy and good manners. They address the organizational managers as either gracious lady for a female or grand gentleman for a male. Contrally to this, the Germans have a more direct approach to communication. In addition, they attach little or minimal attention to issues that are personal or social. A mistake by a German manager can easily be pointed out directly to the manager without any hesitation by anyone including the subordinates. The classification by these researchers has put the United Kingdom and Germany in the same category and this is erroneous since their culture is completely different. The cross cultural research should attempt to examine the similar and different points between cultures so as to understand culture better. Cultures should not be used to separate countries and the respective people in those countries. Instead of approaching management and leadership styles from the perspective of relationship-oriented or task-oriented approaches, House, R.J., Dorfman, P., Gupta, V. (2004). The traditional approach of democratic and authoritarian leadership styles. The managers of cross cultural organization will be better appreciated not by classifying a country as being in preference of the task-oriented style of leadership of the relationship-oriented style of leadership but by the capacity and ability of these managers to attain the following in their organizations; To develop knowledge and skills that will allow them to be able to assume all the leadership behaviour that is required. To gauge and establish the typology of leadership that would work best in a given culture Hofstede through his research established the following five dimensions that he recommended for discriminating across the cultures; Power distance - This is used to measuring the rate of inequality between inferiors and bosses and also the degree to which it is embraced and accepted by the organization. Uncertainty Avoidance -, This describes the extent to which an individual feels comfortable with situations that are ambiguous and the degree to which the individual can be able to tolerate uncertainty in the organization. Individualism v. Collectivism -Collectivism is the feeling of being part of a group or a team while individualism is the feeling of being as an individual and on your own. Hofstede used this to measure the extent to which an individual thinks of him or her self as I versus us. This describes the ties between people as either being loose or tight. If tight then the people become cohesive in a team. Masculinity v Femininity - Hofstede also called this achievement- versus relationship- orientation. The cultures that have higher rates of masculinity are rated as having more achievement and success and less caring for the other people and the worth of life. Confucian Dynamism -This is the short or long term orientation that the various cultures posses. The fifth dimension that Hofstede established being the short or long term orientation has visible inconsistencies. The Confucian values have been embedded together in the elements of the time orientations. This lacks clarity in terms of how these components of the time orientations have characterized the phenomenon. Some components may be used to show an orientation in the long-term very effectively by use of different logic. For instance, observing tradition is an element of an orientation that is short term and can lead to stability, lack of turbulence and continuity may contribute to the organization prospering in the long-term. The classification of cross culture by the time orientation was also attempted by Trompenaars. He described countries as either having a long-term or short-term horizon of time. This is slightly different from the classification by Hofstede. It is however of interest to note that the former and the latter do not agree on the orientations by time. Trompenaars observes that the element of future orientation is the foundation of the organizational strategy. This is because the orientation is inclusive of the aspects of organizational strategy like future planning for contingencies as well as the integration of the organizations short-term activities with the plans that are long term. The classification of countries by Trompenaars's as either being prone to the use of leadership-oriented or task-oriented style of leadership does not look very useful to organizations, Hampden-Turner, C.M., Trompenaars, F. (2000). It could have been more appropriate to use the aspect of introversion and extroversion to evaluate the countries that have more managers who are introverted. Research shows that the managers who are extroverts are much better managers than those who are introverts. This is because they are able to network, take initiatives when it comes to decision making among others. It does not make much of a contribution to investigate the culture types that have more introverts or extroverts than the others. It is possible for an individual to tell when interacting with an introvert or when interacting with an extrovert. This is because an individual is made up of different cultural identities that are subject to change. The identity of a person can be influenced by the community or social group that one belongs to. It is also possible to have more than one identity at the same time. Hofstede had the opinion and view that we can categorize the national cultures as either being collectivist or individualistic. The view may not be accurate since people can have both of these categories at the same time and to various extents, Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. (1999). For example, a manager could want to be rewarded for individual contribution to the organization and at the same time not want to be alienated by the socially at the working place. Countries are also different in the use of management practices and has been clearly indicated by the cultures of the United Kingdom and Germany. This then implies that it is not proper to categorize countries as either being collectivists or individualist. Conclusion Culture defines who a person is. It is the way of living that a person acquires from the environment which surrounds the individual. A national culture on the other hand defines the collective culture that the people of a given country have. Germany and the United Kingdom are states that have a diverse population and consequently each of them has a national culture that is different from the other. The research by Trompenaars and Hofstede has been evaluated on the basis of these two states. References Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. (1999): Social Identity and Social Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford Hampden-Turner, C.M., Trompenaars, F. (2000): Building Cross-cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values, Wiley, New York, NY Hofstede, G. (2001): Cultures's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA House, R.J., Dorfman, P., Gupta, V. (2004): Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Magala, S. (2005): Cross-cultural Competence, Routledge, London Read More