Cross-Cultural Management - Report Example

Running head: Management Cross cultural management Insert Insert Grade Insert 09 March Table of contents Page Introduction…………………………………………………………………….………………..2 Cross Cultural theorists……………………………………………………….………………..2 Geert Hofstede……………………………………………………………….………………….2 Fons Trompenaars………………………………………………………….…………………..3 Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….…………….4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….7 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………7 References………………………………………………………………………..…………..…9 Introduction China is an East Asian state whose culture is greatly influenced by Confucianism. The main religions in China are Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, and Christianity. Buddhism is the most dominant. There are seven major languages used in China, with Mandarin being used by majority of the population. Hans Chinese is the biggest ethnic group. The rest include Zhuang, Hui, Manchu, Uighur, Miao, Tibetan, Yi, among others. The major industries in China include power (nuclear, hydro, and thermal) and manufacturing and automobiles industries. Cross Cultural Theorists Geert Hofstede Geert Hofstede proposed that people differ in terms of several dimensions which include power, masculinity, collectivism, orientation, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence. The first dimension is power distance. Power distance refers to the degree to which the subordinates in institutions and organizations accept the fact that power distribution is unequal. In cultures where low power distance is approved, consultative power relations are expected. People in the organization relate as equals. Subordinates participate in decision making and can criticize their bosses. However, in countries with a high power distance, the subordinates accept dictatorial power relations (Hofstede 1980). The dimension of individualism versus collectivism is concerned with the extent of consolidation of individuals into groups. Countries that are individualistic emphasize on individual rights and personal accomplishments. Individuals are expected to act on their own to defend themselves and their families. Nations that promote collectivism act as a team. The dimension of uncertainty avoidance versus tolerance refers to the degree of reducing uncertainty in order to manage anxiety. Individuals in societies with high uncertainty avoidance try to prevent anxiety by strictly following the rules and regulations. Individuals in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance have few rules and prefer unstructured and dynamic settings. These individuals accept changes and are more logical (Hofstede 1993). The masculinity versus femininity dimension is concerned with the differences in gender roles. Individuals in masculine societies tend to emphasize on power, competitiveness, ambition, materialism and assertiveness. Feminine-oriented societies emphasize on quality of life and relationships. Societies that emphasize on long-term orientation focus on the future. They promote values such as saving, adaptation and persistence, which will bring future rewards. On the other hand, societies that are short-term oriented promote values concerned with the present and the past. Such values include preserving traditions, stability, and reciprocation. Another dimension is indulgence versus restraint. Highly indulgent societies give people the freedom to satisfy their desires and needs. However, societies that emphasize on restraint regulate and suppress the satisfaction of peoples’ desires and needs and are characterized by strict rules (Hofstede 1993). Fons Trompenaars Fons Trompenaars proposed seven cultural dimensions, which include universalism versus particularism, neutral versus emotional, individualism versus collectivism, achievement versus ascription, specific versus diffuse, sequential versus synchronic and internal versus external control. Universalism versus particularism is concerned with the peoples’ judgment of the behaviour of others. This dimension tries to establish whether greater importance is accorded to relationships or rules. In universalism, observing rules is more important. Universalists apply similar rules in every situation and they analyze situations objectively. They treat everyone equally. Bonds are more important than rules. Countries that promote particularism apply different rules in different situations. Every individual is viewed differently (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1994). The individualism versus collectivism dimension is concerned with whether people work individually or as a team. Individualists make decisions alone and quickly. In collectivism, group work is emphasized. Decision making is slow as many people are involved. Neutral societies do not show emotions. Individuals in neutral societies control their feelings and emotions. On the other hand, emotional individuals display their feelings and emotions. They use gestures, and they smile and frown. Another dimension is specific versus diffuse. Individuals in societies that are specific-oriented separate their working lives from the private ones. Such people tend to be direct, purposeful, and precise in their relations. On the other hand, people in societies that are diffuse-oriented have their private and working lives interconnected. In their relations, these individuals tend to be indirect and purposeless (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997). Societies that emphasize on achievement rather than ascription use titles that relate to a person’s proficiency. The status of an individual depends on their achievements. Societies that are ascription oriented do not attach titles to an individual’s competence. The managers gain status and respect based on their hierarchy levels. Status is accorded based on the age or religion of the individual and not his/her performance. The sequential versus synchronic dimension deals with time management in different cultures. Sequential individuals work out a schedule for each activity and follow it strictly. Such individuals do not like unexpected events that tamper with their schedule. They greatly value punctuality and lateness is frowned upon. Time is regarded as a commodity that should not be wasted. Synchronic individuals have a specific goal and they conduct several activities simultaneously in order to achieve it. They do not follow a strict schedule. Synchronous individuals value people greatly by sparing time to attend to them even if they are doing other tasks. Punctuality is not greatly valued by synchronous people. The dimension of internal versus external control looks at whether people control the environment or vice versa. Individuals in internal-oriented society believe that they control the environment while those in external-oriented societies feel that they are controlled by the environment (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2000). Analysis The United Kingdom has a low power distance. The society in the United Kingdom believes that there should be less inequalities of power between people. On the other hand, China has a high power distance. This society accepts power inequalities among individuals. Misuse of power by the management is not criticized. Individuals are discouraged from being too ambitious beyond their level. The management style in China is hierarchical and directive. Communication and instructions are passed down the hierarchy from the top management. Subordinates will be seen as disrespectful if they question the seniors’ directions. Senior managers should be respected by the subordinates. In the UK, the managers value the input of every employee. The managers consult with the employees and share decision making processes. In China, decision-making is the responsibility of few members of the top management and takes a short time while in the UK, the manager consults with the staff and considers their input before making decisions. Therefore, decision making takes a long time (Mullins 2005). People in the United Kingdom are highly individualistic. The society instils a culture of individuality from an early age. Individuals are encouraged to pursue personal fulfilment (Harris, Brewster and Sparrow 2003). In China, the society is greatly collectivist. The actions of individuals should be for group benefits. Staffing in organizations is influenced by groupings like family and therefore individuals from such groups are favoured. Relationships in the groupings are good but members from different groupings are hostile to each other (Warner 2005). China is collectivist and therefore, individuals prefer to work in teams. The UK is individualistic and people prefer to work alone. Therefore, employees in the UK should be assigned tasks individually while those in the China should be assigned group assignments. When individualistic individuals are required to work as a team, the design of the team should ensure that every member can identify their contributions and feel accountable for the overall performance of the team. Failure to do that will lead to loafing (Mead and Andrews 2009). The uncertainty avoidance of the UK is low. Individuals in this society are not worried about future unexpected situations but handle them as they arise. They have few rules and adjust their schedules to deal with new situations. At the workplace, they focus on the achievement of the main goal and not on the details of how it will be achieved. China also has low uncertainty avoidance. The society has flexible rules which are often adjusted to suit different situations. The Chinese are at ease with ambiguity, as is evident in their language (McSweeney 2002). The United Kingdom is short-term oriented. This nation greatly respects traditions and history. The society mostly focuses on the achievement of short-term goals. They make short-term plans and emphasize on quick results. On the other hand, China is long-term oriented. They focus on values like perseverance and persistence and long-term investments which have long-term results. The culture of the United Kingdom is highly masculine. The society is greatly defined by values such as success, ambition, and competition. The best achievers are regarded as successful. China is also highly masculine. The society is driven by success and therefore, the Chinese work very hard at the expense of leisure and family. The UK is highly indulgent while China emphasizes on restraint (Selmer 1998). The United Kingdom is Universalist and develops rules to apply to any situation. On the other hand, China is particularistic. The rules change in every situation. China is highly emotional while the UK is neutral. The Chinese express their emotions openly. Communication is through verbal and non-verbal cues. In the UK, people do not publicly display their emotions. Individuals in the UK communicate by emphasizing on precision (Tung 1993). In the organization, communication flows from the top management down the hierarchy. In the United Kingdom, communication is usually direct and they do not like the use of too many words. They do not speak with emotion and seem distant. They rarely use body language. In negotiations, the Chinese are proficient in negotiating to gain concessions. If they disagree with one of their members they prefer to keep quiet than argue to avoid embarrassing the speaker. The Chinese enter into the discussion room in the order of ranks and in most cases the senior person is the only one who takes part in the discussions. The Chinese communicate with emotions and therefore one should focus on their verbal and non-verbal cues. Negotiators from the UK use tactics that pressure the partner into closing the deal such as setting deadlines. The past decisions of the Chinese can change depending on the progress of the discussions. However, negotiators from the UK handle one issue and complete it before moving to the next (Gesteland 1999). The UK is individualistic and the society focuses on individual goals. China on the other hand is collectivist and focuses on group work. In motivating employees, collectivist societies like China, will prefer flat salary systems, while in individualistic cultures like the UK, performance based rewards are appropriate. Effective leaders who make sound decisions on the employees’ behalf also motivate the Chinese. In the UK, employees are motivated when managers value their input and engage them in decision making. The UK is achievement-oriented while China focuses on ascription. In the UK, success is gauged in terms of an individual’s achievements. Individuals earn senior positions in organizations because of their good performance and skills. In China, success is measured by age, gender or social group. Senior members of the organization are respected and considered successful due to their length of service, among other factors (Warner 1995). The UK society is specific. They separate their working lives from their private ones. The Chinese are diffuse. Their private and professional lives are interlinked. The Chinese are synchronous while the UK society is sequential. The Chinese will do many tasks as at the same time while individuals from UK do one task at a time and follow a strict schedule. The UK focuses on internal control while China believes in external control (Schneider and Barsoux 1997). Conclusion From the above discussion, it is evident that the United Kingdom has a low power distance, is individualistic, low uncertainty avoidance index, is short-term oriented, masculine and indulgent according to Hofstede’s theory. On the other hand, China is collectivist, masculine, long-term oriented and has high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance and emphasizes on restraint. According to Trompenaars, the United Kingdom is Universalist, achievement-oriented, neutral, specific, individualistic, externally controlled and sequential while the Chinese are collectivist, diffuse, synchronous, internally controlled, particularistic, emotional, and emphasizes on ascription. Recommendations A UK manager undertaking a business assignment in China should do the following: • Adopt a directive and hierarchical management style. • Be involved in decision-making alone or engage other senior members of the organization. • Mostly assign team work to the employees. • Reward the employees using the rule of equality • Allow the display of emotions in communication and be able to interpret non-verbal cues. • Avoid heated arguments during negotiations. • Adopt a synchronous method of doing several tasks at once. • Develop flexible rules and adjust them to every situation • Adopt ascription in gauging success. Reference List Gesteland, RR 1999, Cross-Cultural Business Behaviour: Marketing, Negotiating and Managing Across Cultures, Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press. Hampden-Turner, C and Trompenaars, F 1994, The Seven Cultures Of Capitalism, London, Judy Piatkus. Hampden-Turner, C and Trompenaars, F 2000, Building Cross-Cultural Competence, London, Wiley. Harris, H Brewster, C and Sparrow, P 2003, International Human Resource Management, London, CIPD. Hofstede, G 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- Related Values, Beverly Hills, Sage. Hofstede, G 1993, Cultural Constraints in Management Theories. Netherlands, University of Limburg. McSweeney, B 2002, Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 89-118. Mead, R and Andrews T 2009, International Management, 4th ed., England, John Wiley & Sons. Mullins, L J 2005, Management and Organizational Behaviour, 7th ed., UK, Prentice Hall. Schneider, SC and Barsoux, J L 1997, Managing Across Cultures, London, Prentice Hall. Selmer, J 1998, International Management in China: Cross-Cultural Issues, London, Routledge. Trompenaars, F and Hampden-Turner, C 1997, Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity In Business. 2nd ed. London, Nicholas Brealey. Tung, R 1993, Managing Cross-National and Intra-National Diversity. Human Resource Management, Vol. 32, pp.461-477. Warner, M 1995, The Management of Human Resources in Chinese Industry. London, Macmillan. Warner, M 2005, Human Resource Management in China, London, Routledge. Read More