Cross-cultural management points on the essence of considering the differences in practices, cultures, and preferences desired by the consumers, for example in a social or a market set up. According to Hofstede perspective, there are independent categories that help identify the differences in cultural practices. Relatively, the perspective only adopts the notion of using the U.S as the ideal cultural practice when comparing with other regions. Notably, the idiosyncracies are unique to U.S management alone. They include focusing on manager instead of the worker, personal stress and stressing on the market process.
The Hofstede perspective lacks diversity since it considers the U.S management perspective ideal. Similarly, it is wrong to insinuate that management practices are universal (Hofstede, 1993, p. 82). Javidan et al perspective point at the need to embrace diversity is emphasized. However, the perspective lacks various elements to make it useful. It assumes that people are aware of the impact of natural culture. It lacks global leadership elements that are essential for the management of the multinational companies, for example, the case of Fortune 500. The company has recorded incidences where they lacked global managers due to incompetence in service delivery. The company failed to adopt cultural diversity in equipping potential managers with the necessary skills that go in line with the expectations of a particular cultural practice.
On the other hand, Trompenaars and Woolliams’ perspective is based on adopting models that enhance cultural changes within a corporate culture. However, the ideology fails to embrace the current culture since it focuses on adopting a new future. For management to be successful both the present, past and the future cultures should be intertwined. Considerably, the new paradigm seeks to achieve a win-win outcome. The perspective identifies the different frameworks, which includes the change in leadership to ensure they can effectively deal with dilemmas and reconcile any issue that arises due to change. However, it tends to create friction in the change process in its attempt to create a new perspective in management. As much as the models offer a solution to dilemmas, tension creates strains the operation of the business operations due to uncertainty concerning the “through” process.
Certain issues should be explored in the management of international cultures. The essence of globalization has created the penetration of various businesses across the world. In this way, critical management of culture should be analyzed to prevent the creation of friction and tension within cultures, for example, training on effective communication. This will ensure that when the business corporates meet, they know how to communicate with each other to achieve imperative communication. The cultural heritage when in a foreign country should be explored. Prior information and research should be done. This will act as a way of appreciating other cultures. Further, it will help remove the instances of having a superior culture underrating other cultural practices. Emphasis should be put on the significance of working with the current culture to avoid confusion. Cultures should not be swapped with other cultural practices (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 68). Additionally, it is paramount to explore the authentic and informal leaders. They are often overlooked, but they are great in driving culture. The identified leaders will be useful in embracing culture by their actions; they “lead by showing.” Hence, the other personnel follows suit. The use of the informal mechanism through pragmatic leaders and cultural intervention should be reinforced with the cross-purposes.
The three perspectives relate. All the perspectives focus on the cultural diversity. The proponents believe that embracing other cultural practices will sustain the international relations of the multinational corporations. Further, the implications on leadership desire the utilization of cultural management to avoid conflicts that would interfere with the operations of the organizations. Additionally, the three perspectives show the need for change; change brings out the differences in operations of the businesses. The readiness for change by the firm demonstrates how the company can embrace a unified model that will see the running of the organization being successful. A key focus is a continual profitability, core competence, and market share. By embracing corporate cultures, organizations will be able to preserve their living existence and maintain their business culture.
The approach the three perceptive adopted differs. Hofstede took a universal approach in discussing the essence of cultural management. The author explains the cultural management in various countries and their theoretical exploration. It notes that countries have different national culture, but the author categorizes the elements in independent dimensions that explain the various management styles. He compares other countries management models with the U.S model (Hofstede, 1993, p. 92). Javidan et al perspectives use the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organization Behavior Management) model. The program shows the difference in leadership in various countries. They provide solutions on how to deal with executive problems globally. On the other hand, Trompenaars and Woolliams perspective emphasizes the importance of maintaining current culture instead of shifting to a new culture. This will ensure that conflicts do not occur (Trompenaars & Woolliams, 2003, p. 373). Further, it considers change as a form of bringing a difference rather than being an element that opposes continuity.
References
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 3(7), 81-94.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of ManagementPerspectives, 67-90.
Trompenaars, F., & Woolliams, P. (2003). A new framework for managing change across cultures. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 361–375.
