The Cultural Differences of Britain and India - Essay Example

Topics: HRM Developing Cross-Cultural Capability Order: 165071 Pages: 8 Deadline: 2007-05-04 01:27 Language Style: English UK Style: APA Table of Content Executive Summary 3 Objective of paper 3 Research Methodology 3 Comparative country cultural profile 3 Identification of two main differences in management style 8 Evaluation 12 References 14 Bibliography 15 Executive Summary In this assignment, there is discussion regarding the cultural differences of Britain and India. Different aspects of cross culture are discussed. There is discussion regarding the management style of the organisation. The strength of the culture is also important for merger. At last there is suggestion for the British manager. The objective of this assignment is to compare culture of both countries and identify critical areas of differences in cultural values and management styles. Research Methodology The information obtained for this assignment has been used for analysing cultural differences of the company. Comparative Country Cultural Profile National culture is the values and attitudes shared by individuals from a specific country that shape their behaviour and their beliefs about what is important. For a manager, national culture and organisational culture both are important. National culture has a greater effect on employees than does their organisations culture. 1Managers understanding of culture give a basis on what to predict and what negotiations might respond to managers' offer. Hofstede's framework for assessing cultures is one of the most widely referenced approaches to helping managers better understand differences between national cultures. Managers and employees vary on five dimensions of national culture. Individualism versus Collectivism Individualism is the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals. In an individualistic society, people are supposed to look after their own interests and those of their immediate family and do so because of the large amount of freedom that and individualistic society allows its citizens. British are in nature of individualism while Indians are somewhat collective. Collectivism is characterised by a social framework. In collectivism, people prefer to act as members of groups and expect others in groups of which they are part (such as family or an organisation) to look after them and to protect them. 2Power Distance Hofstede used the term power distance as a measure of the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organisations is distributed unequally. A high power distance society accepts wide differences in power in organisations. Employees show a great deal of respect for those in authority. Titles, rank, and status carry a lot of weight. In India, power distance is very high but in Britain it is not as high as India. In fact it is low in Britain. A low power distance society plays down inequalities as much as possible. Superiors still have authority, but employees are not afraid of or in awe of the boss. Uncertainty Avoidance It describes the degree to which people tolerate risk and prefer structured over unstructured situations. People in low uncertainty avoidance societies are relatively comfortable with risks. They are also relatively tolerant of behaviour and opinions that differ from their own because they don't feel threatened by them. On the other hand, people in a society that's high in uncertainty avoidance feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and experience high levels of anxiety, which manifests itself in nervousness, high stress and aggressiveness. British are less likely to avoid uncertainty than from Indian. Quantity versus Quality Of Life The fourth cultural dimension is a dichotomy. Quantity of life is the degree to which values such as assertiveness, the acquisition of money and material goods and competition prevail. Quality of life is a national cultural attribute that emphasises relationship and concern for others. Indians emphasise on quality of life whereas British emphasises more on quality of life. Long Term and Short Term Orientation Hofstede's final cultural attribute looked at a country's orientation toward life and work. People in long-term orientation, cultures should look to the future and value thrift and persistence. A short-term orientation values the past and present and emphasises respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations. Indians are longer term oriented and British are more short term oriented. The GLOBE (global leadership and organisational behaviour effectiveness) research program, which began in 1993, continues to investigate cross-cultural leadership behaviours. The globe research team identified nine dimensions on which national cultures differ. Assertiveness: It is the extent to which a society encourages people to be tough, confrontational, assertive, and competitive versus modest and tender. This is essentially equivalent to Hofstede's quantity of life dimension. Future orientation is the extent to which a society encourages and rewards future oriented behaviours such as planning, investing in the future and delaying gratification, this is essentially equivalent to Hofstede's long term, short-term orientation. Gender differentiation is the extent to which a society maximises gender role differences as measured by how much status and decision-making responsibilities woman have. Definitely India is much more likely to differentiate gender. The globe team defined uncertainty avoidance dimension as society's reliance on social norms and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events. Performance orientation refers to the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. Human orientation is defined as the degree to which a society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring and kind to others. This is similar to Hofstede's quality of life dimension. England is medium in performance orientation. And India is medium in future orientation. In case of in-group collectivism, India is highly ranked. The globe project gives managers additional information to help them identify and manage cultural differences, it extended, not replaced, Hofstede's work. In fact the globe project confirms that Hofstede's five dimensions are still valid. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions 3 PDI Power Distance Index IDV Individualism MAS Masculinity UAI Uncertainty Avoidance Index LTO Long-Term Orientation Religion in the United Kingdom 4 Religion in India 5 Identification of two main differences in management style There are some differences in the management style of the two countries. One difference is the dominant view in management. In India, the omnipotent view is followed. This view reflects a dominant assumption in management theory: the quality of an organisation's managers determines the quality of the organisation itself. It's assumed that differences in an organisation's effectiveness or efficiency are due to the decisions and actions of its managers. Good managers anticipate change, exploit opportunities, correct poor performance and lead their organisations toward their goals, which may be changed if necessary. When profits are up managers take the credit and reward themselves with bonuses, stock option, and the like. When profits are down, top managers are often fired in the belief that new blood will bring improved results. For instance India's coaches are often fired for their performance. The view of managers as omnipotent is consistent with the stereotypical picture of the take-charge business executive who can overcome any obstacle in carrying out the organisation's goal. This omnipotent view, of course, is not limited to business organisations. Coaches who lose more games than they win are seen as ineffective. In the omnipotent view, when organisations perform poorly, someone has to be held accountable regardless of the reasons and in our society that someone is the manager. Of course when things go well we need someone to praise. So managers also get the credit even if they had little to do with achieving positive outcomes The Symbolic View In case of Britain, the symbolic view is followed. It says that a manager's ability to affect outcomes is influenced and constrained by external factors. In this view, it's unreasonable to expect managers to significantly affect and organisation's performance. Instead and organisation's results are influenced by factors outside the control of managers. These factors include, for example the economy, customers, governmental policies, competitor's actions, industry conditions, control over proprietary technology, and decisions made by previous managers. 6Managers need to be internationally minded otherwise they might become biased. All These Can Be Said About British Managers According to the symbolic view, managers symbolise control and influence, they create meaning out of randomness, confusion and ambiguity or try to innovate and adapt. Because they have a limited effect on organisational outcomes, a manager's actions involve developing plans, making decisions and engaging in other managerial activities which they do for the benefit of stockholders, customers, employees, and public. However the part those managers actually play in organisational success or failure is minimal. Another difference in management style comes from the culture of the organisation. Company cultures vary widely in the degree to which they are embedded in company practices and behaviour norms. British culture is stronger than Indian culture. Most British company's culture is strong and cohesive in the sense that the company conducts its business according to a clear and explicit set of principles and values, that management devotes considerable time to communicating these principles and values to organisation members and explaining how they relate to its business environment and that the values are shared widely across the company- by senior executives and rank and file employees alike. 7Strong culture companies typically have creeds or values statements, and executives regularly stress the importance of using these values and principles as the basis for decisions and actions taken throughout the organisation. In strong culture companies, values and behaviour norms are so deeply rooted that they don't change much when a new CEO takes over although they erode over time if the CEO ceases to nurture them. And they may not change much as strategy evolves and the organisation acts to make strategy adjustments, either because the new strategy is compatible with the present culture or because the dominant traits of the culture are strategy neutral and can be used to support any number of plausible strategies. The factors contribute to the development of strong cultures. Number one is a founder or strong leader who establishes values, principles and practices that are consistent and sensible in light of customer needs, competitive conditions and strategic requirements and number two is a sincere, long standing company commitment to operating the business according to these established traditions thereby creating an internal environment that supports decision making and strategies based on cultural norms and number 3 is a genuine concern for the well being of the organisation's three biggest constituencies - customers, employees and shareholders. Continuity of leadership, small group size, stable group membership, geographic concentration and considerable organisational success all contribute to the emergence and sustainability of a strong culture. During the time a strong culture is being implanted, there's nearly always a good strategy- culture fit, which partially accounts for the organisations success. Mismatches between strategy and culture in a strong culture company tend to occur when a company's business environment undergoes significant rapid-fire change, prompting a drastic strategy revision that clashes with the entrenched culture. In such cases a major culture changing effort has to be launched. 8In direct contrast to strong culture companies, a company's culture can be weak and fragmented in the sense that many subcultures exist, few values and behaviour norms are widely shared and there are few sacred traditions. In case of most Indian weak culture companies there's little cohesion and glue across organisation units- top executives do not repeatedly espouse any business philosophy or exhibit commitment to particular values or extol use of particular operating practices. Because of a dearth of common values and ingrained business approaches, organisation members typically have no deeply felt sense of corporate identity. While they may have some bonds of identification with and loyalty toward their department, their colleagues, their union or their boss, the weak company culture breeds no strong employee allegiance to what the company stands for. The lack of a definable corporate character tends to result in many employees viewing the company as a place to work and their job as a way to make a living, as a consequence, weak cultures provide little or no strategy implementing assistance because there are no traditions, beliefs values, common bonds or behavioural norms that management can use as levers to mobilise commitment to executing the chosen strategy. While a weak culture does not usually pose a strong barrier to strategy execution, it provides no assist either. British managers need to remember Indian culture in case of any merger. Evaluation There are many differences between British and Indian management culture. The differences are in the nature of culture such as individualism and collectivism, power distance, quantity and quality of life, assertiveness, future orientation. Gender differentiation is huge in British and Indian culture. In case of any merger between these two types of companies these issues need to be address precisely. Different management styles are followed in these 2 countries. In India, omnipotent view is followed and managers are often greatly appraised or blamed for their success or failure. If the British managers are not used to in omnipotent view then there might be possible conflict between managers and board of directors. And Indian managers are also not in the habit of the symbolic view of management style. Cultural strength is also important in the company. If the two types of organisation don't have similar culture that may causes problem. As the two cultures are different there might be communication gap. I think In case of teamwork and negotiation there will be no problem since both countries managers are expert in it. The interaction in management should be handled carefully. Management need to congruent with the objective of the company. 9British managers negotiate salaries for incoming employees, negotiate for resources from their bosses and work out differences with associates, or resolve conflicts with subordinates. British managers acquire as much information about the person with whom the manager will be negotiating. They think that understanding this person's position will help the manager to better understand his or her behaviour; British managers predict person's responses to the manager's offers and frame solutions in terms of his or her interests. In case of Indian managers this is not the case. Generally they don't take preparation to negotiate with other persons. The difference is big in this case. British managers like to concession because they think that concessions tend to be reciprocated and lead to agreements. Therefore they begin bargaining with a positive overture and then reciprocate the other party's concessions. Indian managers do not seem much concessive like British managers. They are more likely to non concessive. British and Indian managers have somewhat differences in this respect. One thing British managers do is that they concentrate on the negotiation issues, not on the personal characteristics of the individual with whom the manager is negotiating. When negotiation gets tough they avoid the tendency to attack the person. They remember it's that person's ideas or position that the manager disagree with, not him or her per personally. But Indian managers put emphasise on the appearance on the person who is going to be dealt with. They often address personal characteristics. British and Indian managers are different in this respect. British managers pay little attention to initial offers. They treat an initial offer as merely a point of departure. Everyone must have an initial position. Such positions tend to be extreme and idealistic. In case of Indian managers they tend to be giving more attention to initial offers. The difference here is mild. British managers emphasise to wining solutions. If conditions are supportive then they look for an integrative solution. In case of Indian's they tend to be more aggressive. They want to get more advantage over their competitors. The difference is not much big here between the managers of the countries. Bibliography 1. Mead K (1998) International management cross cultural dimensions, 3Rev Ed edition - Blackwell, oxford 2. Schneider's & Barsouxj (2003) Managing across cultures, 2nd edition, prentice hall, Daresay H International management -prentice hall 3. Thompson and Strickland, (2004), Strategic management, 13th edition, McGraw hill, New Delhi. 4. Robbins, Stephen & M. Coulter (2004), Management, 8th edition, Pearson Education. 5. Michael J. Stahl, David W. Grigsby (1997), And Strategic Management: Total Quality and Global Competition, Blackwell Publishing. 6. Geert Hofstede (2003), Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions, Geert Hofstede, available at: < www.geert-hofstede.com > 7. Geert Hofstede (2007), Geert Hofstede Analysis Great Britain, Geert Hofstede, available at: < http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/united_kingdom.htm > 8. Geert Hofstede (2007), Geert Hofstede Analysis India, Geert Hofstede, available at: < http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/india.htm > Read More