Cross Cultural Assignement

EUR148 Cross-cultural management

Critically evaluate the contributions of two cross-cultural management theorists in understanding and resolving international management issues. Relate your answer to two cultures which are not your own - identify and concentrate on significant differences between the two cultures which arise from the theories.

Make your choice of theorists from: Geert Hofstede; Nancy Adler; Edgar Schein; Fons Trompenaars; Edward Hall; House et al; Marie-Joëlle Browaeys and Roger Price.

Choice of theorists:
1 Geert Hofstede
2 Fons Trompenaars

Choice of cultures:

1 United States
2 India

My culture:

Spain

Introduction

The business world is affected by globalization. For this reason, a good manager needs to understand the differences and similarities between different countries in order to operate with the opportunities and deal with the threats (Punnet, 2004:6-7). This shows the importance of the concept of culture.

Various researchers such as Hofstede (1980), Schein (1990), Trompenaars (1993) and Hall and Hall (1990) have tried to categorize different cultures using relational and extensive dimensions in order to compare them. Using these dimensions, it is possible to know the characteristics than define persons of a particular culture. This would facilitate the “understanding of culture and management in an international environment” (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 5).

Hofstede (1980) was the first to research differences across national cultures of different countries in the field of the management. His studies allowed him to know to what extent dissimilar cultural clusters can affect an organisation (Browaeys and Price, 2008:21). Trompenaars’ (1993) shares Hofstede’s opinion that “much of management behaviour is culturally determined” (Needle, 2004:151). Hofstede’s dimensions are different to Trompenaars’ dimensions. Their studies should be considered as an addition to one another, not as a replacement. Nevertheless, some dimensions can be compared on account of their similarity (Gooderham and Nordhaug, 2003:144).

This paper will analyse the United States and India, based on Hofstede’s (1980) and Trompenaars’ (1993) dimensions. According to House et al (2004:190) these countries belong to different clusters, where similar cultures have been grouped. The United States is one of the countries compose the Anglos and India is among the cluster of Southern Asia (House et al, 2004: 190).

The concept of culture

There are different ways to define culture. According to Hofstede (1980) culture is defined as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (2005:4), while Trompenaars and Hampder-Turner (1998:6) determine culture as “the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas”. Both definitions share the meaning of culture referring to the behaviour of different groups when they respond to environmental issues (Perkins, 2006:55).

Hofstede’s dimensions

Hofstede (1980) developed a dimensional approach to compare various cultures to explain the extent of influence in management. He based his research on IBM, a multinational company, with subsidiaries located of different countries and later confirmed the dimensions of national culture differences with a variety of other studies (Hofstede, 2002). These dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individual versus group orientation, masculine versus feminine orientation and short-term versus long-tem (Browaeys and Price, 2008:21).

Power distance

Using Hofstede’s rank, India is a country whose power distance is high, above international average. According to Hofstede (2003), India is characterized as a society with high inequality of wealth and power. The workplace is a good example of this inequality. The manager’s offices are roomy and equipped with comfortable furniture. In contrast, an ample office area is shared by about thirty lower level employees (Culbertson and Chen, 1996:188). On the other hand, the United States presents a lower level of power distance, below world average. This means than, according to the societal levels, can be seen that there is greater equality within families, companies and governments (Hofstede, 2003). In the case of making decisions, the managers for an American company promote the employees contribute to work decisions in a limited level. It is improbable that an American company established in India could translate this leadership style to India culture. This is because subordinates may prefer to be submitted to the manager’s decisions (Johns, 1996:128).

Individualism versus collectivism

Hofstede says that many countries that have a high level on the power distance are, in turn, a low level on the individualism index, and vice versa (2005:82). This is the case of the United States and India. The United States is one of the most individualistic countries studied by Hofstede. In this country, “affiliativeness, dating, flirting, small talk, and initial acquaintance are more important than in collectivist countries, where the social network is more fixed and less reliant on individual initiative than in the mobile U.S. society” (Gudykunst and Mody, 2002:94). In contrast, India is characterized by an intense feel of collectivism. It is common Indian people relinquish their personal aims in order to achieve the purpose of a larger corporation (Davis, Chatterjee and Heuer, 2006: 35).

Hofstede agrees with Gudykunst and TingToomey (1998) that high-context communication is typical for collectivist cultures and low-context communication fits individualist societies. These are the Hall’s distinctions (Hofstede, 2001:212). According to this, the individualist United States is a low-context culture. It is common for Americans to convey the information clearly and directly. On the other hand, the collectivist India is a high context culture. Indian people are very context sensitive. They usually communicate nonverbally or using indirect messages which the information is easy to understand in the situation (Littlejohn and Foss, 2009:534). If an American manager is negotiating with an Indian manager, misunderstandings could occur because of their different ways of communicating.

Long term orientation

One can relate Hofstede’s (1980) third dimension long-term orientation to his individualism and collectivism dimension. Depending on whether a culture is individualistic or collectivistic, the use of time can be different. “These time differences suggest that individualistic cultures are most task oriented in contrast to the relational and socioemotional orientation of collectivist cultures” (Gudykunst and Mody, 2002:94). According to Hofstede (1980), India scores very high on long term orientation, above the world average. On the contrary, the United States has a low level in this dimension. This dimension is the lowest of the five dimensions in this country (Hofstede, 2003). In India, there are no separation between work and family. Managers make their own contribution using the needed time and resources. Due to their cultural belief system, Indian managers can be rewarded or penalised according to produced results, even when the result is a consequence of decisions made by his predecessors in the company years earlier (Hofstede, 2005:219). In contrast, in the United States the managers are characterized by their short-term strategies (Needle, 2004:150). “American managers are more concerned about the bottom-line in the short-term” (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 47).

Trompenaars’ dimensions

Trompenaars’ (1993) studied the different cultures using three key categories: relations to other people, to time and the environment. The dimensions corresponding to the relations to other people are five: universalism versus particularism, individualism versus collectivism, neutral versus affective relationships, specific versus diffuse relationships and achievement versus ascription. Sequential versus synchronic time and inner versus outer directed are dimensions which represent attitudes to time and attitudes to the environment, respectively (Browaeys and Price, 2008:82).

Trompenaars’ dimensions will be analysed relating to India and the United States are universalism versus particularism, achievement versus ascription and inner versus outer directed. Significant differences can be seen between these cultures under these dimensions.

Before analyzing these three dimensions, it should be noted that India and the United States are very different when considering the individualism versus collectivism dimension. This dimension is very similar to Hofstede’s individualism versus group oriented dimension. Trompenaars coincides with Hofstede’s findings and stated that the United States is characterised by an individualist culture and India by an collectivist culture (Ruman, Collison and Hodgetts, 2006:135).

Universalism versus particularism

The universalism versus particularism dimension refers to the degree of compliance with the rules. In universalistic cultures, according to Trompenaars, all kind of rules, values and codes have priority to any circumstance, regardless of relationships and the needs that may arise (Trompenaars, undated). Norms must be obeyed as established; this is the case in the United States. In particularistic countries, the rules are applied considering the circumstances of each person and the relationships (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 83). In the United States, all kinds of actions are performed at the company, such as hiring, which are based on strict corporate policy compliance based on the law. On the contrary, Indian people feel the rules and policies are guidelines to apply in different situations (Steers and Nardon, 2006: 137).

Achievement versus ascription

The achievement versus ascription dimension reflects the status in the company, where a status is ascribed or based on achievement (Ruman, Collison and Hodgetts, 2006:136). Trompenaars says that people whose status is obtained by their achievements are characteristics of achievement-oriented society. On the other hand, in an ascriptive culture the status is obtained “from birth, age, gender or wealth” (Trompenaars, undated). Employees will be more motivated to have more power in a company if the promotion policy is based on achievement and not on ascription (Warner and Joynt, 2002: 113). India is “a class-oriented society”. The findings of the study “the social responsiveness of Indian management graduates” discovered most of them derive from wealthy family (Culbertson and Chen, 1996:188). In contrast, the United States is a country where the achievement is rewarded. In an American company, the extent of performance of an employee is assessed like the value contributed to the organisation (Storti, 2004:70). Therefore, if a young American manager is sent to a branch in India, probably he will have many more difficulties to be promoted in that country than in a company established in United States (Gooderham and Nordhaug, 2003: 144).

Inner versus outer directed

The inner versus outer directed dimension shows if the people are controlled by the environment or, on the contrary, that the environment is controlled by the people. In this way, Trompenaars’ classify the United States in the group of inner-directed cultures and India in the group of outer-directed countries. Indians consider is important to adjust their lives to external conditions as they do not control most of the consequences of life. Because of this, “they tend to strive for stability and living in harmony with nature” (Steers and Nardon, 2006: 140). According to Browaeys and Price, the Hindu religion is predominant in most part of the country so “there may be failures but this is less to do with personal competence, more to do with fate” (2008: 66) Otherwise, according to Trompenaars’, American managers believe that the inner convictions of their employees compose the company’s purpose (Ferrie, 2000:140). “Americans feel good about being independent and in control of their own destinies” (Aswathappa, 2008: 193).

Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ contributions and criticisms

The exhaustive research of Hosftede has allowed finding the way to relate the differences between the countries around the world and to link those differences to the styles of management (Mullins, 2007: 26). The core consequence of Hostede’s studies is that application of the same personnel policies in a multinational can affect differently depending on the country where these policies are applied. In this way, the multinational should have an approach to the culture of the country where it has been established in order to reduce any conflict that may occur between these different cultures (Gooderham, 2003: 139).

Nevertheless, Hofstede’s work has been criticized by many researchers since he published his main work in 1980 (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 28). Mullins criticizes, like other authors in this field; the approach taken by Hofstede to his studies is focused at the national level, not regional. He considers that may be significant differences within the same country. (2007: 26). Other authors challenge it is possible than the information obtained from his studies remains current (Mullins, 2007: 26). Tayeb (1996) is against the way Hofstede conducts his researches. He thinks it is not very appropriate to consider a culture based on the findings from a questionnaire of attitudes. Nevertheless, he finds it a very efficient tool for comparisons between different cultures. Bond (2002) believes that one of the main criticism of Hostede’s study was caused by locating the United States at an extreme of the individualism versus collectivism dimension. Another criticism is that the sample of the research from IBM employees is not very representative (Gooderham, 2003: 139-140).

Regarding Trompenaars, his “work is based on lengthy academic and field research” (Mullins, 2007: 27). It is quite useful because it relates the aspects of culture to organizational behaviour. This relation is very important, “particularly to people approaching a new culture for the first time” (Mullins, 2007: 27).

As Hofstede, Trompenaars worked from a database of great size. Respondents are subjected to a forced choice. Different dilemmas are presented and they are “forced to choose between two responses” (Warner and Joynt, 2002: 260). Warner and Joynt suggest it is possible that the results of his researches are quite distanced from the real relation between different cultures (2002: 260).

Although initially it may be believed that the Trompenaars’ seven dimensions are a development of the Hofstede’s five dimensions, these dimensions have a different nature. This is reflected in the criticism made by Hofstede of Trompenaars’ model and the subsequent response of Trompenaars derived from the criticism (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 87).

Hofstede (1996) challenges how Trompenaars conducted the research arguing that he had used a database from preconceived ideas obtained from the American literature of the mid-twentieth century. In their response given to Hofstede’s review, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) believe that cultures should be more like circular instead of linear, as suggested Hofstede. They propose the idea that cultures should not be located as high, low or in the middle of a dimension but cultures vary from one extreme to another of the dimension depending on the dilemmas they encounter (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 87).

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars state that their model is to learn from their respondents and vice versa. However, they think Hofstede constantly seeks the perfect model which results in the diminution of his learning (Browaeys and Price, 2008: 87).

Conclusion

In this essay, the importance of understanding different cultures within the management has been reflected upon. Managers must be aware that not only their employees can be from different countries and, therefore, have different cultures. But everyone associated with the organization, such as investors and competitors, may have a different culture to that of the company. For this reason, it is necessary that every organisation is aware of the main features of the cultures to avoid possible problems that may arise from ignorance.

Geert Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars have an important role for their contributions to understanding cross-cultural management issues. The five and seven dimensions obtained from Hofstede’s (1980) and Trompenaars’ (1993) researches, respectively, are a good tool to deal with this matter. Those dimensions relate to different aspects than can be compared between different countries.

However, although these theorists’ researches have been of great influence to others authors and have contributed greatly to understanding cross-cultural management, also they have received many criticisms. Even Hofstede (1996) and Trompenaars (1997) have criticized each other’s work. But also should be noted that Hofstede (1980) has been of great influence to Trompenaars (1993).

In this paper, it has been discovered based on various examples of India and the United States, that according to these dimensions, they are different countries with significant cultural differences. In relation to Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ dimensions, India and the United States are in the opposite extreme in most cases. This implies a large difference between these cultures and reflects the problems that might occur when they run business operations or in the relationships between colleagues.

Therefore, although it is not possible to consider that people from the same culture share the same attitudes and values, is very useful to know the key features that distinguish one culture from another. This could help improve the relationship between multicultural employees and negotiations with international companies.

References

ASWATHAPPA, K., 2008. International Business. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

BROWAEYS, M-J. and R. PRICE, 2008. Understanding cross-cultural management. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

CULBERTSON, H.M. and N. CHEN, 1996. International public relations: a comparative analysis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

DAVIS, H.J., S.R. CHATTERJEE and M. HEUER, 2006. Management in India: trends and transition. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

FERRI, P., 2000. Employment relations and national culture: continuity and change in the age of globalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

GOODERHAM, P.N. and O. NORDHAUG, 2003. International management: cross-boundary challenges. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

GUDYKUNST, W.B. and B. MODY, 2002. Handbook of international and intercultural communication. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

HOFSTEDE, G., 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organisations across nations. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

HOFSTEDE, G., 2002. A summary of my ideas about national culture differences [online]. Available: http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/PAGE3.HTM [accessed 11 November 2009].

HOFSTEDE, G., 2003. Geert Hofstede, Cultural Dimensions [online]. Available: http://www.geert-hofstede.com [accessed 17 November 2009]

HOFSTEDE, G. and G.J. HOFSTEDE, 2005. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

HOUSE et al, 2004. Leadership, Culture and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage: Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

JOHNS, G., 1996. Organizational Behavior : Understanding and Managing Life at Work. 4th ed. New York: HaperCollins Publishers Inc.

LITTLEJOHN, S.W. and K.A. FOSS, 2009. Encyclopedia of communication theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

MULLINS, L.J., 2007. Management and organisational behaviour. 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education

NEEDLE, D., 2004. Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment. 4th ed. London: Thomson Learning.

PERKINS, S. and S. SHORTLAND, 2006. Strategic International human resource management: choices and consequences in multinational people management. 2nd edit. London: Kogan Page Limited

PUNNET, B.J., 2004. International perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

RUGMAN, A.M., S. COLLISON and R.M. HODGETTS, 2006. International Business. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

STEERS, R.M. and L. NARDON, 2006. Managing in the global economy. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

STORTI, C., 2004. American at work: a cultural guide to the can-do people. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.

TROMPENAARS, F. and C. HAMPDEN-TURNER, 1998. Riding the waves of culture: understanding diversity in global business. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

TROMPENAARS, F. and C. HAMPDEN-TURNER, undated. The seven dimensions of culture [online]. Available at: http://www.7d-culture.nl/Content/cont042.htm [accessed 18 November 2009].

WARNER, M. and P. JOYNT, 2002. Managing across cultures: Issues and Perspectives. 2nd ed. London: Thomson Learning.

References: ASWATHAPPA, K., 2008. International Business. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. BROWAEYS, M-J. and R. PRICE, 2008. Understanding cross-cultural management. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. CULBERTSON, H.M. and N. CHEN, 1996. International public relations: a comparative analysis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. DAVIS, H.J., S.R. CHATTERJEE and M. HEUER, 2006. Management in India: trends and transition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. FERRI, P., 2000. Employment relations and national culture: continuity and change in the age of globalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. GOODERHAM, P.N. and O. NORDHAUG, 2003. International management: cross-boundary challenges. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. GUDYKUNST, W.B. and B. MODY, 2002. Handbook of international and intercultural communication. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd. HOFSTEDE, G., 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organisations across nations. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd. HOFSTEDE, G., 2002. A summary of my ideas about national culture differences [online]. Available: http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/PAGE3.HTM [accessed 11 November 2009]. HOFSTEDE, G., 2003. Geert Hofstede, Cultural Dimensions [online]. Available: http://www.geert-hofstede.com [accessed 17 November 2009] HOFSTEDE, G HOUSE et al, 2004. Leadership, Culture and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage: Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. JOHNS, G., 1996. Organizational Behavior : Understanding and Managing Life at Work. 4th ed. New York: HaperCollins Publishers Inc. LITTLEJOHN, S.W. and K.A. FOSS, 2009. Encyclopedia of communication theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd. MULLINS, L.J., 2007. Management and organisational behaviour. 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education NEEDLE, D., 2004 PERKINS, S. and S. SHORTLAND, 2006. Strategic International human resource management: choices and consequences in multinational people management. 2nd edit. London: Kogan Page Limited PUNNET, B.J., 2004 RUGMAN, A.M., S. COLLISON and R.M. HODGETTS, 2006. International Business. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. STEERS, R.M. and L. NARDON, 2006. Managing in the global economy. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. STORTI, C., 2004. American at work: a cultural guide to the can-do people. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc. TROMPENAARS, F. and C. HAMPDEN-TURNER, 1998. Riding the waves of culture: understanding diversity in global business. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. WARNER, M. and P. JOYNT, 2002. Managing across cultures: Issues and Perspectives. 2nd ed. London: Thomson Learning.