The Advancement in Technology and Different Cultures - Coursework Example

The Advancement in Technology and Different Cultures Introduction The advancement in technology has brought together people of different cultures in a working environment. But it can also be challenging because communicating with people of different cultures would require you to understand the dos and don’ts and the taboos of that culture. These cultural differences were explained by a psychologist, Dr. Geert Hofstede in 1970, who explained them through 5 dimensions namely: Power Distance (PD) Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) Hofstede’s model has proved to be stable and authentic, therefore, to analyze the cultural incidents given to us, we will make an effective use of the Hofstede’s 5 Dimensions model. There are other models as well which includes Time Dimension. It focuses on how different cultures and people view time and can be divided into four societies (Ferraro, 2001): Precise-Reckoning-of-Time Loose-Reckoning-of-Time Sequentially-Oriented Synchronically-Oriented Another dimension is Individual-Collective Dimension which basically divides the societies into two types (Ferraro, 2001): Individual-oriented Society Collective-oriented Society Last is the Equality Hierarchy Dimension. This dimension deals with questions targeted at the relation between people of different hierarchical level and is categorized into two societies (Ferraro, 2001): Egalitarian Hierarchical Now keeping these few dimensions in mind, we will analyze the current scenarios and suggest appropriate solutions. First Scenario Peter Jonkhart had difficulty adjusting with his team due to the behavior and attitude of his coworkers. There was no communication problem because Peter knew a little bit of Malay and his co-workers knew English pretty well. Research shows that in Malaysia, organizations have vertical hierarchy and the people at higher positions are treated like royalty (Choa, 2009). According to Hofstede, the PD of Malaysia is high (104), due to which, they acknowledge a leader’s power. The problem started when Peter was introduced to his team and he insisted his team to call him by his first name. It was normal for Peter because he came from Belgium whose PD is moderate (ITIM International, 2010). Also Belgium comprised of an egalitarian society, where the power was delegated to the subordinates and the relationship between the boss and his team members is supposedly informal, therefore, Peter didn’t realize that he had made a mistake when he tried to be informal with his team. Whereas, in Malaysia, superiors are not called by their first names but titles such as “Mr” or “Madam” are used, followed by their honorific form of address (Choa, 2009). The second disapproved behavior was when Peter refused the offer of a second secretary and a chauffeur-driven car. Due to the vertical hierarchy in Malaysia, people at the top are treated with respect. This was a way of showing it, which he refused. Thirdly, Peter kept his door open to show that he was accessible. Although, a friendly move by Peter but in Malaysia, bosses aren’t easily accessible. Also, they avoided talking to him in the corridors because in Malaysia, the relationship between a superior and his subordinates is distinct and highly official. Peter also felt that his colleagues weren’t making a lot of contributions. This can also be explained by high DP. When he tells his wife about his Finance manager, he doesn’t realize that the finance manager does this because he is an authority and it is normal for him to act this way. Attitude to punctuality also varies with the nationalities and ethnic Malays have a relaxed attitude towards time (Choa, 2009). According to the time cultural dimension, Malaysia has a loose-reckoning-of-time society in which relationships were placed above work and lack of punctuality is instilled in them. So, the fact that his team mates arrived late for meetings angering Peter, was nothing of importance to the Malaysians. In Belgium, due to high UA, it is likely that emotions are expressed using raised voices (ITIM International, 2010). But since, this index in Malaysia is low, the anger Peter took out on Musa was wrong. And this resulted in a more detached behavior of his team members. According to individual-collective cultural dimension, Malaysian society is collective-oriented, and to stick out a single person from a group, whether to appreciate or insult, has very adverse effects. All in all, it was a bad start for Peter and his team. Peter should’ve investigated about Malaysian culture earlier. But now, it is better to follow Malaysian traditions and go to the authority to look for answers. To gain respect from his team, it would do good to take the second secretary and chauffeur-driven car offer. Also, because of lack of punctuality, it would be better for Peter to communicate it to the team instead of picking on a person. Malaysian business etiquette states that it is a DO if one takes time to establish productive business relationships (Chao, 2009). So, Peter should focus on developing those first. Second Scenario: Kuwait is another country which consists of a hierarchical society and also, whose PD is high (80). Hence, the superiors have ultimate power and authority. When the Kuwaiti CEO with his sons goes to meet his counterpart, he is disappointed that the CEO had to leave for urgent business. Due to the high PD and hierarchical structure of the organizations of Kuwait, Al-Hashini was most probably offended by this. Keeping in mind the hierarchical society and high power distance, the negotiations were started by a person of lower power and position as that of the CEO. This might’ve resulted in a negative impact upon the Kuwaiti delegates. Due to a high UA, Kuwaitis like to take things slow. They are shrewd negotiators and the decision making process shouldn’t be rushed. Also, if the lead negotiator is changed, the negotiations need to start over (Kwintessential Ltd, 2010). Kuwait’s low Individualism index explains that they like to first develop trust relations with the businessmen. During the awkward moment when the British team pointed out that the project was to be officially agreed upon and the Kuwaiti team resisted, it showed they didn’t trust John, and therefore, didn’t entrust him with the details of the February reports either. It is also likely, that this was caused due to high UA index of Kuwait (68). The preparedness of meetings matters a lot to the Kuwaitis. The absence of the CEO as well as the previous employees who worked on this proposal was a setback. It should’ve been communicated to the Kuwaitis beforehand. When it was communicated to the Kuwaitis that the day’s plans were cancelled, they went into a long discussion without translating anything to their counterparts. It is likely that they were offended due to the sudden change of plans. Since Kuwaitis have a low Individualism index (38), they prefer to do business with people they personally know. Also, since Kuwait has a collective-orientation for a society, they value long-term relationships with the people especially with whom they do business. Therefore, they spend a lot of time on the getting-to-know process (Kwintessential Ltd, 2010) which may be the reason of the Kuwaitis discussing the football teams. Kuwait is also a past-oriented society with people having strong bonds with their families. It should be expected that such people would like to share something related to their family or past. This factor may also be the reason of the Kuwaiti CEO asking the Head to show them around London. It is most likely that the Kuwaitis were trying to create a trustworthy environment for them to do business in, but the refusal of John acted otherwise. Firstly, the absence of CEO and previous negotiators should’ve been mentioned beforehand. Secondly, the negotiation shouldn’t have been rushed. It is also preferable to discuss problems one-to-one in Kuwait rather than in a meeting room full of people. This might be the reason that the Kuwaiti CEO avoided going into details about the February report. Also, John should’ve accepted to show London to the Kuwaiti team to create an atmosphere of trust. To save the situation, previous negotiators should be sent back to continue with the proposal and set up a meeting with the two CEOs. Conclusion: It is always advisable to study the culture of the country you are going to do your business in. In both of the scenarios, one culture was European and the other was Muslim. Hofstede’s study explains that mostly in Muslim culture, the high index of PD and low index of Individualism should always be kept in mind. Also, the Equality Hierarchy dimension suggests that both these countries had hierarchical societies and the organizational structure was tall. Similarly, in European countries a high index of Individualism, a low index of PD and an egalitarian society was the reason that individualism, time punctuality and lesser social interaction were brought into the cases. The Time dimension, equality hierarchy dimension and individual-collective dimension proved that they can be relied upon while explaining or trying to understand cross-cultural business activities. References: Ferraro, G. P. 2001, The cultural dimension of international business, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. ITIM International, 2010. Geert Hofstede: Cultural Dimensions. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2010]. Katz, L. 2004. Book Review: Geert Hofstede: Cultures and Organizations – Softwares of the Mind. Leadership Crossroads, [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2010]. Kristalyn Choa, 2009. Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions on Malaysia. Predicate.wordpress.com. [online] 17 June, Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2010]. Kwintessential Ltd., 2010. Kuwait - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2010]. Read More