Cross-Cultural Management in China - Literature review Example

Cross Cultural Management xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Cross Cultural Management The importance of the need of cross-cultural managers to be aware of the dimensions cannot be emphasized. The knowledge of cultural impacts assists the managers to understand the perspectives of all the stakeholders. It is obvious that cultural differences can lead to performance barriers in any organization. Indeed, the Cox Model that describes organizational culture as an important tool that the management ought to be aware of. Organization culture has become one of the dominant themes in the field of management. The model does provide insight into various issues that concern the different cultures. The cultural differences between Australia and China and their different influences in managerial and organizational processes have continued to be studied. Indeed, it has been observed that the cultural differences have led to different management practices and styles. Hutchings & Murray (2002) maintain that Australian organization ought to pay more attention to the preparation and adaptability of cross-cultural in expatriate selection. In China, they argued that the culture attributes are mainly determine by the size of the company and employees expatriate’s length of work in China. Cultural is perceived to have effects on communication, decision making, relationships betweed superior and subordinates, leadership role and group orientantion or individualism. Various dimensions on leadership have been studied in different context. These include individualism, masculinity, uncertainity avoidance and power distance. It is therefore, important for every leader to understand these dimensxions in order to improve interpersonal relationship, productivity and company profits. This important as there is a correlation between successful performance of an organization and cultural dimensions in different societies. Still, it is important so as to modify management styles to fit in a culture of foreign countries (Moorhead & Griffin 2004). The dimension of individualism/collectivism is a major cultural variability that has been discussed by various theorists across different disciplines. Moorhead & Griffin (2004) documented on the major differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures for example, importance to the Chinese of building relationships, saving face and taking time to make decisions. Indeed, this does vary immensely from an individualistic approach. In addition, in some organization it is hard for managers to understand the differences. It is therefore, important for the managers to understand this cultural differences within the work place. Essentially, individualist cultures offer social status rewards to employees who stand out. It may also give incentive for motivation that is different from monetary incetives. Individualism makes collective action difficult as the indiduals tend to pursue their own interest lacking internalization of collective interests. In contrast, collectivism makes collective action easy as individual do internalize group interest. Neverthless, it encourages conformity and depress individuals from outstanding. The framework means that individualism encourages innovation while collectivism has a great benefit in coordinating invention processes (Chen & Tjosvold 2002). China is under the collectivism or low individualistic dimension. The majority of the Chinese have been seen with the characteristic of group orientation. This is attributed to the fact that the Chinese see themselves as section of a larger whole, value harmony and friendships. Collectivism is said to originate from early agrarian economies and has been enhanced by the teaching of Confucius. It is important to note that collectivism is not a product of communism. Cross cultural studies undertaken have revealed that member of this dimension are more concerned with conforming to the social norms than the individualists societies. As the collectivist approach is concerned with preserving friendship, status and face, most Chinese employees are supposed to avoid conflict. In comparison, individualistic cultures in Australia are involved with conflicting ideas as they are engaging in business activities and decisions. Still, they got a tendency to weigh personal goals than community goals (Chen & Tjosvold 2002). Chen & Tjosvold (2002) discovered in the course of structural equation analysis that if working is indeed, part of the a group in an organization, collectivist will enforce coopertaive objectives and the members of the group will perceptibly take part in open-minded discussions. This is crucial in every organization and the managers are seen to encourage such discussion in the work place. Due to this method of group work, the Chinese employees create strong relationship and productivity is high. However, in Australia, as a result of their individualistic values, group is characterised with competition among the members where everyone competes for goals. In addition, the employees tend to participate in the close-minded discussions. These dimension also influence decision making in an organization. In a collectivinism dimension, longer time is taken for decision as compared to individualistic culture. There is a great emphasis on winning everyone as the employees do not llike taking full responsibility (Li & Scullion 2006). This is a long process and ofcourse it is likely to annoy the Australia whose decision making are simple and quick. It is obvious that voting is an important element in the Australian culture. It is mostly used when people in group cannot make a decision. However, the Chinesebelieve that voting will undermine those who lose. In Australia culture, many employees know their managers in and out of work and may relate to each other regardless of the work environment. Private and work lives are separated. On the other hand, in China, manager’s reputation is the same in the private life and work. For instance, if the manager is unapproachable in the organization as a result of his high status, even in the social he will definitely be unapproachable. The Chinese employees will employ various ways to avoid speaking of their personal lives at the work place. As a result, other employees and management may find it challenging as they try to understand their Chinese group members. It is important to not that management theories from the Western have become less applicable to various Chinese organizations. However, in some organization, there is evidence of a China style individualism that has been adopted by some managers (Li & Scullion 2006). In every organization, communication is a significant tool of expressing the feeling of any persons to other by nonverbal and verbal means. Beamer & Varner (2008) asserts that comunications are indeed products of culture. One of the challenges that is facing various multinational organizations is the rising diversity of the workforce. Cultural nuaces, value divergence and language barriers may easily cause low efficiency and unintentional understanding in international communication in multinational organizations. Cross cultural communication does serve as a lubricant that resolves conflicts, improve work efficiency, enhance collaboration of group work and mitigates friction leading to a desirable synergy effect. The differences between collectivism and individuaism does affect individual’s communication style. The individualistic cultures tend to encourage people to express their view openly. Indeed, the culture teaches individuals to control their feelings expressing them in a delicate way. Therefore, the Australia employees are straightforward in their dealings. Yang & Yi (2006) assert that the being assertive and straightforward represents the individuals self-assurance, efficiency and competitiveness. On the other hand, the retiring Chinese culture, is viewed as respect and polite though the process consumes lots of time. Being direct and straightforward tends to be aggressive, overbearing and abrasive. With the increased globalization, the need to understand of cultural influences on organizational and leadership practices has increased. It is obvious that the leaders have continued to face compex, greatly changing and difficult to interpret situations. The managers of international organizations have continued to experience rapid and fierce changes due to competition. There are various types of leadership in different countries and cultures. There are various types of leadership in different countries and cultures. Management methods and leadership styles across the world are very diverse and are affected by specifications prevailing in the environment. Power distance is a significant assessment of differences in organizattional cultural between Australian and China. It refer to the noticeble distance between the employees and the managers in organization or superior and subordinates . Yang & Yi (2006) describe it one of the tools that explains how organizations and individuals view the distribution of power among the members. China is well known of of its high power distance. Superiors with higher power do enjoy greater privilege and status than those with or without power. Under such circumstances, the subordinates are not likely to express disagreement or challenge with superiors. This basically means that rank structure is undoubtedly delineated between subordinates and management. In addition, in disagreement with the high management is frowned upon. On the other hand, Australia organizations are associated with low power distance. In such organization the belief is that powerd does corrupt and the subordinate with non power are not to be characterized as a remedy for those who have. Still, the subordinates and the communal, society leadership offer great input into decisions is an accepted and normal practice. It is obvious that leaders’ decision making style vary based on various external factors that highly determine the extent of power distance in an organization. This include: culture, organizational structure, external threats, degree of formality and relationships with other employees. In China, there is practically no rapport between the suborinates and the leaders, a formal contract is created that is usedd in achivement of goals in this case. Chinese managers, as members of the higher power distance community, they demand unquestionable loyalty and respect. The superiors are expected to establish relationships with their subordinates. This is a principle known as ‘Guanxi’ a principle that is based ojn Confucianism. This principle allows the weaker employees to ask favours from their superior. The superior is then expected to respond (Yang & Yi 2006). Simply, the Chinese managers are anticipated to work within defined lines ascertaining their authority at the same establishing a rapport with the employees. It is obvuous that this principle help the employees in weaker position by providing support. Indeed, there is a need for the managersx in China to create and maintain apparent managerial power while developing relationships that will permit the subordinates to ask and receive aid where need be. In Australia, hierarchy is created for convenience. The superiors are said to be accessible while the managers do rely on individual teams and employees for their expertise. Both the employees and managers are expected to be confered with and the information generated is shared regularly. The communication in this case is described a direct, informaln and participative (Beamer & Varner 2008). Uncertainity avoidance differs in the managerial and organizational processes in organizations found in Australia and China. Uncertainity avoidance refers to the degree to which employees feel uncomfortable with some situations and direct steps to shun them. Thi phednomenon occurs at different levels in an organization. Indeed, uncertainity avoidance has different implications for leadership traits and leadership characteristics such as formal, habitual and cautious is seen as a significant form of leadership in various countries while a negative type in others. The Chinese managers are perceived to be less approachable, more controlling, less likelihood to delegates to their subordinates than Australia. This means that the managers do not put much trust on the employees. Uncertianity avoidance is a realistic culture in Australia. This essentially calls for the involvement of experts and generalists. The focus on planning is present and may be altered and improvisations made at a short notice. As a result, a wide degree of acceptance for innovative products, new ideas and willingness to take risks whether it pertains to business practices, technology and foodstuffs. Decision making styles in both countries is different as a result of different cultures. Organizations leaders have acquired distinctive decision making styles. The styles have emerged, in part, from the unique habits, biases, laws and traditions. Cultural environment expect specific ddecisions from within a given circle. In addition, the cultures are passed from one generation to another. The rational decision making model does involve a cognitive process, thinking and weighing the posible consequences. Each step follows a given logic order after another. This model assumes that there are unlimited amount of information that is available for making decisions. In addtion, it presumes that there is always the best outcomes. The model presupposses it is possibe to consider each option and and future consequences and limited by the indiidual’s ability to remember. Essentially, it requires a great deal of information ans time. Attempts to counteract the role of emotions in making of decisions. In China, the process of decision making is based on evasiness, hierachy, discipline and respect. On the other hand the Australian, tend to make decisions quicker than the Chinese. In addition, the Chinese believe that haste in decision making is a sign of idiots and that quick decision making is a significant sign of competent and aggressive in the European countries. The Australia culture employs the rational decision –making model. However, not in every situation or possibility. In emotional decision making model, decisions are made quickly. As such, they are made from emotional resasons and apparent unconscious. The driving forces for decision making are internal emotions. This model is complex and is characterised bynormative theory and prescriptive theory. As the Australians are quicker in decision making than the Chinese, they are seen to make more of emotional decisions. theChinese classically demonstrate more deference or filial piety and respect for their family members than Australians. They experience a tighter bond between school colleagiues, coworkers, other proffessional acquitances than the Australians. This increases the likelihoood of c reating emotional decisions. Various researches carried out have depicted that the Chinese are more realistic in decision making than Australian. In addition, they tend to utilize more ethical than abusive principles. The combination of practices and ideations from both cultures offers opportunities to apply the emotional decision making. The political decision making are mainly determined through the process of power struggles, consensus building and conflict. The building blocks process start with an interest of an organization or individual. Basically, there are two different groups that are competing for similar resources. It has been noted bthat this model has provided an alternative for traditional approaches in the recent years. While the Chinese require oersonal power and affiliation, the Australians are seen to analyze the sitiuations and conceptualize possible solutions. The Chinese are more collectivists in the decision making choices than the Australia. In addition, it has a high power distance, that is, persons with power do possess a greater privilege and status than those without. The Chinese manager are directive and authoritative and are anticipated to make decisions for the organization. The Australians, on the other hand, are direct and authoritative in many cases, they are characterized with a sense of fcorming coalitions and expanding the network in order to their decision making strategy (Li & Scullion 2006). In the garbage can decsion making model, organizatiojs are collections of participants, solutions, probleems and choice opportunities. In these basic premises tne participants are expectfd to lionk problem and solutions. As the elements are mixed in the garbage can, the solutions can precede the problems and vice versa. Still, the problems can wait for a choice opportunity. In addition, all these elements may convence at a specific set of participants assemble. This model frequently occurs in various organizations that try to run themselves in a democratic manner and consensus building principles. In a simple way, the model does resemble the idea of solution searching for problems. Under this model, the organizations are regarded as organized anarchies with inconsistent or unclear goals. It is direct opposite the rational decision making model (Nutt 2011) Under this model Australians possess a decision making that does reflect a high need of achievement. It is mainly focus driven. The driven focus may blend with collection of choices, problem, opportunities and participants. This type of model does lack flexibility. It is more of rigidity and characterized by limited probability. In addition, it relies on process and is unable to involve individual likes of the decsion maker. As the Chinese culture is observed to be centered and rigid as it moves through the process of decision making, this model can offer benefits by providing opportunities which may be necessary for mix up in order to get other ways for making decisions (Sellers 2005). It is important to note that some managers are unable to grasp and adapt working in different cultures. This may be attributed to the fact that some managers do not understand the different cultur nuance. To escape from this, the organizational leaders should break away from the cultural biases. Evading the preconceived cultural idedas or notion and finding the root of the situations hereby establishing opportunities to make decisions which will readily help the organization (Saaty 2007). It is obvious that leadership is the spirit and core of organizations. Not only do they manage the organization but also deal with the azffairs of employees face to face. Therefore, one can maitain that leaders, are essentially, th spokepersons of any organization. The relationship between a leader and subordinates in any organization does develop over time and depends on conservations, interactions, tryouts and observations. It is obvious that a relationship that is close will ensure good performance evaluations, mutual trust, promotion opportunities and trust (Nutt 2011). As the Australia organization advocatefor horizontal organizational structures to run the organization, the Chinese support the strong superior-subordinate relationship, that is, vertical management structures. There are sharp differences between vertical and horizontal management. In the horizontal management, an employees’s status ought to come from their duties in the organization instead of whom they are. In cases where a grfoup comprises of individual from different group within the department, a manager will coordinate the effort of the group with non direct authority in managing it (Anderson 2005). Without getting specific authoruty for different level of responsibility, by using influence is the only way that the a manager may have the job done. In the traditional China, organizations emphasizes respect for authority. A junior manager owes any senior manager obedience and respect while the senior managers owe their junior consideration and protection. The actuality that in China organizations favor centralised decision making and organizational hierarchy, does create problem for those organizations that require horizontal participatived and collaboration management (Hong & Engestrom 2004). In Australia, organization are multifunctional entity and every employee has a specific role to deliver. However, in the Chinese culture, it stress kinship and family relationships in running a business, various members of the family are linked relationships who operate with close members of the family and distance friends, acquintance and relatives. They are arranged on the margin according to the degree of trusta nd distance of the family relationship. As a result it is impossible for proffesionals to work in such traditional firms if they lack kinship or family relationship with the owner of an firm or company. It is therefore, obvious that the long-term orientaion of the Chinese culture on company redlationship cannot support the nature of some integrated group in a project (Wang & Liu, 2007). In Australia, the manager is task oriented rather than person or boss oriented. As such, their main focus is that the job be done. However, the Chinese hold onn to benefvits of hierarchy and traditional values. The employees are mainly focused in making the manager happy rather than performing the task. Wang & Liu (2007) assert that the Chinese use an individual’s hierarchial level as the main criterion for respecting and evaluating them. However, the boss orientation evidence in China does not become a cultural barrier as keeping the manager happy and having the job done are similar. Essentially, in China, power in various firm is worshipped and authoritariasm and familism are emphasized. The relationship of ledader-subordinate is more than a job affiliation and hierarchy. In some cases it may be emotional therefore, allowing leaders in the organizational to create an emotional relationtionship with the employees. Essentially, there is a need for manager to understand different effects of culture in running of organizations. This is specially so if the managers operate in different countries. Indeed, culture has had a profound effect in many organizations in different countries. This has affected the rate of productivity, increase in profits and interpersonal relationships. In China and Australia, culture has effect on various ccomponents of organizations. These elements includde communication, decision making, leaders, interpersonal relationship , uncertainty avoidance and power distance. For instance, Chinese are than Australians who are perceived to be individualistics. Such dimensions are seen to have different effects running of organization. Some organizations have opted for cultural training in order to orienate their employees and expose them to various cultural so as to gain an understanding of the culture before setting out to wok in a partic ular country. References Anderson, E 2005, Understanding your project organization's character. Project Management Journal , 34(4), 4-11. Beamer, l & Varner, I 2008, Intercultural communication in the global workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Green, C & Das, T 2002, Conflict management and team effectiviness in China: the mediating role of justice . Asia Pacific Journal of management , 557-572. Hong, J & Engestrom, Y 2004, Changing principes of communications between Chinesse managers and workers. Management Communication Quarterly , 552-585. Hutchings, K & Murray, G 2002, Australian expatriates' experiences in working behind the bamboo curtain: an examination of guanxi in post-communist China. Asian Business and Management , 373-393. Li, H & Scullionn, W 2006, Bridging the distance: managing cross-border knowlegde holders. Asia Pacific Journal of Mnanagement , 1-9. Moorhead, G & Griffin, R 2004, Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nutt, P 2011, Making decision-making research matter. some issues and remedies. Management Research Review , 5-16. Saaty, T 2007, Multi-decisions decision-making; in addition to wheeling and deazling, our national political odies need a forfmal approach to prioritization. Mathematical and Computer Modelling , 1001-1016. Sellers, M 2005, Moogle, google, amd garbage can: the impact of technology on decision making. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 365-374. Wang, X & Liu, J 2007, Cultural barrieres to the use of western project management in Chinese enterprises: some empirical evidence from Yunnan Province. Project Manangement Journal , 61-73. Yang, C & Yi, Z 2006, Explorations on ideological obstacles of croos-cultural communication . Anhui Business and Trade Professional School Journal , (5), 77-80. Read More