Cross-Cultural Management Communication - Literature review Example

Cross-Cultural Management Communication Name Institution Cross-cultural Management Communication Introduction A significant realistic challenge which companies experience in the continuing inter-reliant global market is the capability to perform efficiently across the cultural boundaries. Rather than operating entirely in the cultural background where they were established, managers and employees has to currently be able to function properly in several foreign cultural conditions, which posses different cultural values for proper behavior which could differ with their beliefs and values (Molinsky, 2007, p.622). In reaction to this concern, several management experts have evaluated the aspects and effects of effective long-term adjustment to the foreign culture. Hofstede, Hall, Trompenaars and Schwartz are some of the scholars who have developed theories and perspective which contemporary managers can use to analyze, manage and embrace Cross-cultural communication and negotiations in different countries. Maude (2011) argued that while adopted the theory contextual paradigm, Hofstede used his cultural dimensions to explain how various aspects of culture differ in countries and thus in communication and negotiations too. Based on this these perspectives, this essay will evaluate the usefulness of Hall's high context or low context in describing diversities in negotiation and communication practices between nations. The paper will also consider other theories such as Hofsted’s framework to explain the differences. In addition, the essay will compare culture between the East and western countries to depict the cross-cultural differences. Overview and definitions of terms According to Hall & Hall (1990, p.12) culture is defined as people’s routine way of life. Such routines include learned behavior, trends and patterns, values, attitude and artifacts. Experts argue that culture is normally subconscious in that it has an invisible control process working in people’s thoughts. Culture is thus something common in every member of a social group and can be passed from one generation to the next. Culture also shapes behavior, communication and negotiation factors among one group of people. Guidham (2011, p.24) stated that since culture is always unique to one community, a person from another community must understand the uniqueness so as not offend his counterparts during communication and other activities. In multi-cultural communication, negotiation as a term has widely been used especially among multinational business managers. However, culture is categorized into context by Hall in order to explain the differences according to countries. Hall defined context as information which revolves around an incident but are inextricably tied to the implication of that incident (Hall & Hall, 1990, p.32). According to Tan (2002, p.816), the negotiation is defined as a problem-solving practice where two or even more people try to solve their differences through a procedure which they both mutually agree on. The definition has two important words including “process” and “mutually agree”. Process denotes that negotiation takes steps while mutually agree means that for the process to be successful they people involved must be in agreement (Tan, 2002, p.817). Communication plays an important part of any negotiation process because its use leads to either success of failure. According to Samovar, Porter & McDaniel (2010), communication is defined as an activity of expressing meaning by means of a common system of semiotic and signs rules. The signs and semiotic bear different meaning hence the managers must familiarize with them to conduct a successful business negotiation. There are two classes of communication that are equally important, and they consist of verbal and non-verbal communication (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2010). However, business communication shares certain perspectives which must remain formal and professional. Hall's high context/low context framework in explaining differences in communication and negotiation practices between countries High versus Low-Context Cultures Hall, like other researchers on global organization management carried out wide ranging studies to determine how differences in communication and negotiation practices between countries’ businesses. Hall & Hall (1990) proposed the classification of cultures into low versus high context cultures so as to be able to know their essential differences in cultural problems and communication styles. Communication style can be defined as the manner in which one expresses his or herself to communication systems. On the other hand, Cultural challenges is commonly known as positive societal features like the status of a country’s tradition, religion and history. According to Hall & Hall (1990), High context of communication is typified by a situation where majority of information needed to be conveyed is internalized in a person or in physical context, whilst a few is in a coded form and transmitted as part of the intended message. As opposed to transmitting this message in verbal form, people in the high-context cultural locations often receive and send the information which is different from the low-context communities (Kemp & Williams, 2013, p.218). On the other hand, the low-context is the communication in which the information is transmitted in an explicit code. The communication context is critical in understanding if a manager desires to be effective and successful in their cross-cultural negotiations. Hall & Hall (1990) contended that countries with a high-context culture consist of African countries, Arab countries, China, Brazil, India, Italy, Japan, Korean, Russian, France and Latin America. On the contrary, countries with low-context culture comprise of Australia, Netherlands, the US, Switzerland, Finland, Germany and the UK (Hall & Hall, 1990). There are several cultural differences that may affect business negotiations that are successful. Some of these issues as clarified by Hall in his “High versus Low-Context Cultures” framework include greetings, negotiation approaches, Attitudes about time and gift-giving practices. Greetings Just as the standard rule states that the first impression is important in business, the same principle is also true with negotiation. A proper greeting expresses a message that shows the seriousness one has in creating a good business relationship with other foreign fellows; also, it influences their business decision and judgment towards you (Ralston et al, 2008, p.10). Generally, worldly cultures are not totally diverse, but have some features that are mostly common; these features are referred to as cultural universals. Therefore, these cultural universals allow worldwide languages to acquire less or more expressions that are equivalent for greetings. Although, there are different methods on how individuals from various cultures greet one another. These differences sometimes result into problems. For instance, Ralston et al (2008, p.12) posited that the Chinese usually greet one another with questions that are personal as a way of showing concern and considerations for others unlike the Westerners in their not common psychology and cultural tradition; believe in a person’s liberty and privacy. They find it as respectful and decent not to interfere in individual’s affair. Therefore, they rarely notice the friendliness and considerations by the Chinese due to their greetings that are questions like (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013, p.871). They end up feeling insulted, especially by their questioning talks. Negotiation approaches Business negotiations involve severe battle of tactics and wits. Zhu, Nel & Bhat (2006, p.321) claimed that to be successful in such situations a person involved in negotiations with foreigners needs to be familiar with various global negotiation styles. For instance, the Japanese believe in rites, being a country that is deeply subjected by the Chinese traditional culture, particularly Confucian concepts (Ralston et al., 2008, p.11). In negotiations, they pay more attention to equality in membership of the bargaining group. If the equality is not achieved, they will feel belittled in negotiations. Donahue (1998, p.24) posited that the Japanese do have age-long discrimination against women. They usually feel annoyed when there are lots of business women in the group. They believe that the duty of a woman is to remain in the house, take care of their children, doing house chores and also to wait for their spouses instead of participating in the negotiating table. This male-bigotry could be linked to the Japanese assimilation of Chinese ethical code and the three cardinal guides which holds that the ruler guides his subjects, the father guides his son and the husband guide his wife (Ralston et al., 2008, p.13). Korac-Kakabadse (2001, p.5) opined that the Japanese have another characteristic in the negotiation that is, they have a habit of not giving straight forward and clear answers. They tend to agree on everything by saying ‘yes, yes’. Nevertheless, their ‘yes’ does not mean that they agree to the given conditions, but instead their knowledge concerning what is meant. Their main reason for agreeing to everything by saying yes is because of the sake of their rites. The Japanese believe in personal relationship rather than business contracts (Donahue, 1998, p.17). This shows significant differences to American citizens. Therefore, when conducting a business with the Japanese, it is necessary to take pains and time to create personal friendships and relationship. It is advisable not to depend so much on contracts since the Japanese consider it as a piece of paper (Tan, 2002, p.11). According to Donahue (1998), the U.S.A is often called a melting pot because it has individuals with different cultures all gathering in this country (pot) although some different cultures may not necessarily be found in the pot, there still exist a wider generalization concerning Americans. Jones (2000) claimed that the Americans are commonly known as rugged people who antagonize on negotiation business and try to be noticeable by the crowd while conducting their business deals. They are commonly known as the individuals who get straight to the point and are also straight forward. Americans are confident, honest, take risks especially in matters of material gains and light-hearted. Also, they value laws, efficiency and time (Donahue, 1998, p.17). However, they do not take much time on rituals, formality and social rules. It can be argued that American managers are inspiring for their deal manners at their negotiation table. They are openly communicative and like making jokes to a point that it may be viewed as rude to the other members of the group. All these business styles and character traits of the American people are the outcomes of a young country, having a wide range cultures. Attitudes about time Time is culturally patterned. Therefore, there exists a big difference in individuals’ opinion pertaining time worldwide. Generally, Americans have the same western cultures and particularly societies that are industrialized analyze time based on unilinear (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2010, p.246). They regard time as something which can be wasted, spent, saved, valuable or a commodity. Since they always take account of their money and time, they believe in the saying that time is money. Further, they give importance to speed and disapprove of the passing and wastage of time. They usually hurry to engage in a business and the Japanese take advantage of their intolerance (Maude, 2011). As a country that is oriented, and controlled by confusion concepts, the Japanese put more emphasis on rites and concern in personal relationship before engaging in a business. They are usually not time conscious. When in a business negotiation the Japanese always agree to everything by saying ‘yes, yes’ rather than disagreeing to the terms that they do not like. They are more flexible to time than Americans. Ralston et al., (2008, p.14) Russia is among the countries which consider time as limitless resource and a cheap product. Ronen & Shenkar (2013, p.672), stated that dilatory and Bureaucratic working style exists in Russia. Business individuals from Russia have a habit of not hurrying up in a business negotiation not unless they urgently need what is given. Arabs found in the Middle East do not keep time. Americans who tend to be punctual in meeting deadlines may have to be kept waiting (Thomas, 2000, p.83). On the other hand, if a business associate is invited in the office of the Middle Easterner, the interview may take a lot of time provided they are able to conduct the business; however the visitor who is next may have to wait for a very long time. The Chinese believe that time is elastic; it can be contracted or stretched depending on the situation (Wilson and Brennan, 2010, p.656). Also, there is no need for punctuality and that long delays are usually important before making a decision. Therefore, the Chinese say that it is necessary to think twice before one act. Gift-giving practices In some countries, appreciation is highly valued in communication and negotiation. Appreciation makes people feel recognized. Appreciation can be in the form of gifts. In most cases, gift in the form of flowers have been given to presidents who are visiting but most people are yet to understand its meaning (Jones, 2000, p.174). However, in various meetings between people with different cultures both the parties could present each other with gifts prior to or after the negotiation, so cultures regarding giving of gifts are vital to recognize. In various cultures, people expect to be give gifts and when fails to offer it is regarded as looking down on others (Tan, 2002). On the contrary, some cultures hold that gift gifts is offensive. Japan which is a high-context culture, giving of gift is vital for business negotiation and relationship. Exchange of gifts signifies the strength and depth of business correlations to Japanese. In such countries, gifts are exchanged during the first negotiation meeting (Donahue, 1998). Even without communicating that what they are offering is a gift, someone understands that it is a gift and symbolizes appreciation. When a company is offered a gift, they are also expected do the same. On the contrary, gifts are hardly ever giving in Germany because they are considered inappropriate. In addition, Maude (2011) affirmed that in the UK and Belgium which belong to a low context culture, giving of gift is not regarded as conventional practice, though flowers are sometimes given as a gift when one is a guest at home. Similarly, the gift-giving practice in China is different from that of English culture. In fact, when visiting somebody in China, the visitor is expected to take gift which can either be wrapped or just bare (Wilson & Brennan, 2010, p.659). When the gift is giving when someone is leaving, the host is likely to turn it down by saying “No”. In China, it is also ill-mannered to unwrap the gifts before your guest. However, English-speaking nations, a wrapped gift ought to be given to one’s host immediately after arrival, and the host is anticipated to acknowledging it by saying “thank you” (Maude, 2011). Acknowledging the gift also means the host liked it. The host then goes ahead to opens it and gives further compliments. Hofstede’s cultural dimension Hofstede is one of the most recognized researchers in the area cross-cultural management. In his research he contended that there are differences in cultural factors which can affect communication, performance and negotiations not only between business from different cultural background but generally among people. Guffe (2009) claimed that in the past, business leaders and employees have been rooted in their cultural factors that it makes it hard to work in foreign countries. However, the employees and the general organizations are urged to hide their cultural roots attributes such as behavior and language so as to become the global citizens. Guffe (2009) went ahead to argue that they ought to adopt “rooted cosmopolitanism” by means of incorporating their personal roots and extending out beyond their parent organization. Positively, the research on performance of the expatriates point out that a foreigner who greatly recognizes their culture and even that of others perform effectively compared to those who are familiar with just their own culture. Hofstede’s (2001) widely used theory of five dimensions culture clarifies his thoughts. These dimensions comprise of individual vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, long vs. short-term orientation and masculinity vs. femininity. Hofstede (2001) described cultural dimension as the extent to where people are incorporated into groups. Just like Hall’s cultural context, Hofstede also compared the rate of his dimension between countries of the world. While others are high on the cultural dimensions, others have a low rating on the same dimension. The level of dimension affects communication and negotiations between people of different cultures. For example, Ronen & Shenkar (2013, p.876) argued that in the negotiations between an American and a South Korean, negotiator from the US would need signing the contract, while South Korean national would need more time for engaging in non-business functions, hospitality and have small-talk first in building a strong business relationship. To earn such influence, contemporary leaders must get the respect and trust which can only be influence by agreeable trait and manifested in personality. Ralston et al., (2008, p.17) argued that if used properly, the acquaintance with cultural dimensions could increase the effectiveness in negotiations. Ralston et al (2008, p.22) states that South Korea is a country with higher rates of collectivism culture and its nationals work while observing the interests of the group compared to individuals. With Collectivism, the South Koreans get new ideas to work faster on projects. Individualism also affects how individuals relate and negotiates with one another. For instance, if individualism is left to prevail, South Koreans working in America would consider their reception as cold hence reducing their morale at the workplace. A comparison of individualism reveals that US states has 91 scores of individualism compared to that of South Korea which stand at 18 (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, Guidham (2011) stated that leaders ought to build a team environment which creates positive rapport between employees. According to Hofstede, power distance is the level where inequality in the hierarchical authority and the relationship is accepted in the society (Hofstede, 2001). Nevertheless, the level of acceptance differs from one country to the other based on Hofstede research. Leaders must understand that in some cultures, employees like being close to power while in some countries, people do not mind being far from power. For example, a study conducted in the US reveals a low score of 40 against China with a score of 80 (Hofstede, 2001).. The result is an indication that inequality in an organization is higher in China society than American. It can be argued that Chinese think that all employees are unequal and hence those who are not close to power must obey the authority and decisions they make. Whilst in Western countries like the US, people think that workers are almost equal and should be involved in the decision making. Involvement enables employees to communicate what affects their performance. Therefore, management style in American company makes leaders while Chinese counterparts are dictatorial and high hierarchical (Wilson & Brennan, R. (2010, p.661). Conclusion Globalization and technology is slowly changing the business environment as competition is increasing. Businesses are compelled to cross boarders in search of new markets. However, for a business to get the advantages of the global economy, organizations are required to understand the cultural difference between the parent country and foreign country to performance smoothly. Companies also face political, social and economic challenges. To get into new markets, the companies need effective entry modes such as strategic alliances. Forming alliances need strong communication and negotiation skills which differ from country to country. Therefore, familiarizing with such skills is a step towards the success of negotiation and market entry. However, culture is more than language, and entails daily behavior, attitudes and artifacts. Various researchers such as Hall and Hosftede have urged contemporary managers not to ignore issues such as motivation and hierarchy when dealing with foreign in foreign employees. In his research, Hall categorizes based on low and high context culture. These cultures have been differentiated through various aspects of communication such as greetings, gift-giving concepts and negotiation approaches. On the other hand, Hofstede differentiated culture based on power hierachy, individual versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity among others. Therefore, this paper concludes that managers must always be keen to change, be ready to learn and not to ignore small details of a foreign culture if they desire to succeed in foreign markets. References Donahue, R.T. (1998). Japanese culture and communication: Critical cultural analysis. Lanham Maryland: University Press of America. Guffey, M.E (2009). Essentials of Business Communication. South-Western/ Cengage Learning. Guidham, M. (2011). Communication across cultures at work, Chapter 3. UK: Palgrave McMillan. Hall, E.T., & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences, Chapters 1 and 3. Boston: Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jones, F.L. (2000). Diversities of national identity in a multicultural society: The Australian case. National Identities, 2(2), 175–186. Kemp, L.G., & Williams, P. (2013). In their own time and space: Meeting behaviour in the Gulf Arab workplace. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 13(2): 215-235. Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., Korac-Kakabadse, A., & Savery, L. (2001). Low- and high- context communication patterns: Towards mapping cross-cultural encounters. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(2): 3-24. Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting behavior in foreign cultural interactions. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 622–640. Maude, B. (2011). Managing Cross-Cultural Communication, Chapter 4. UK: Palgrave McMillan. Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H., & Cheng, Y.K. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 8–26. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 867-897. Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R. (2010). Nonverbal communication: the messages of action, space, time, and silence. In Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E. and McDaniel, E.R. (Eds) Communication between cultures. Cengage Learning: Stamford. 243–284. Tan, B. (2002). Researching managerial values: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research, 55(10), 815–821. Thomas, M.A. (2000). Who we are: constructivism and the dual personality of American nationalism. Hinckley Journal of Politics, 2(1), 81–88. Wilson, J., & Brennan, R. (2010). Doing business in China: Is the importance of guanxi diminishing? European Business Review, 22(6), 652-665. Zhu, Y., Nel, P., & Bhat, R. (2006). A cross cultural study of communication strategies for building business relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(3), 319-341. Read More