Introduction
With increasing globalization, there has evolved a keener interest in cross-cultural management. It is now common to have international managers who lead their businesses or organizations spanning various countries wand different cultures. As such it has become incumbent upon these business leaders to ensure that they are equipped with the right management skills so as to have an edge in the competitive environment. This phenomenon of globalization has led to the use of cross-cultural or multicultural teams so as to act as sources of experience and give their respective organizations a competitive edge. Nonetheless, cultural differences usually interfere with the successful operation of business or management owing to the varying cultures in the multicultural global business environment. As such, and in a bid to achieve an organization’s goals and curtail on the cultural misunderstandings, managers need be sensitive to their culture and values so as to gain an insight into why people behave the way they do. As a consequence, an understanding of cross-cultural management is an imperative. Cross-cultural management refers to a system of training of business leaders on the various cultures, practices and consumer preferences around the world. This paper begins with a discussion of the cross-cultural differences and shares in the argument by Hofstede that there can be no universal management theories given the diverse cultures around the world. In the next section, the paper examines the implications for international managers on the finding if the cross-cultural differences. The paper concludes by making the case that managers of global businesses need to have a good understanding of the cultural differences as they are key to effective cross-cultural communication, without which, it is impossible to surmount the challenges that be.
In the multicultural business community the world over, that is the case today, business managers are constantly faced with cultural differences that pose a threat to the completion of the organization’s projects and other business affairs. We describe the most common and accepted theories of cultural differences as cited by eminent authors of management. Leading author in cross-cultural management named Geert Hofstede alongside Fons Trompenaars have conducted studies in which they have proposed the cultural dimensions along which the pervading value systems may be predicated. Hofstede argues that being the case that there are differences in culture in the various countries in Europe, it would then be absurd to talk about universal management theories. He argues that each country has its own unique management theories which rarely and partly apply without the national borders. He offers a succinct example with the importation of the management theories of the proven theories in Europe and the United States to the developing countries, which have failed miserably. The cultural dimensions offered by Hofstede and Trompenaars are both a reflection of the basic problems that bedevil the society and which it has to grapple with to find solutions to, varying as they may be. It is the case that these cultural dimensions are similar in a number of respects and also different in other respects. Further, the dimensions may be categorized into various groups.
The first category may be described as relations between people. In this respect, two key cultural differences have been singled out. On his part, Hofstede sets apart both individualism and collectivism while Trompenaars further breaks down this into two dimensions namely: individualism v communitarians and universalism v particularism. The other category is motivation orientation where societies have freedom to choose ways on how to cope with the innate uncertainty of living. In relation to this category, Hofstede offers three dimensions namely: power distance, masculinity v femininity and amount of uncertainty avoidance. The third and final category is that attitude towards time where Hofstede makes a distinction between a short term and a long term orientation. On the other hand, Trompenaars makes an identification of two dimensions namely sequential v synchronic and inner time v outer time. We shall return later to these categories in detail. Two other categories have been added which are described as socio-cultural dimensions and they include paternalism and fatalism. It goes that in a paternalistic relationship, the duty of the superior in this relationship is to take care, guide, protect and nurture the subordinate while the duty of the subordinate is to show loyalty and deference to the superior. On the other hand, fatalism as a category works on the premise that it is impossible to have the full control of the outcome of one’s actions and that it is futile to seek to achieve something and make long-term targets towards this end.
We return to the most relevant dimensions as cited by Hofstede and examine the problems that may arise out of the cross-cultural differences in management. Uncertainty avoidance denotes the level to which a particular culture programs its people to either feel comfortable or uncomfortable in situations that are not structured. The key problem here is the extent to which the society seeks to control the uncontrollable. This cross-cultural difference was measured by putting a score on the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) which derived from mean scores on questions that touched on orientation, stress and ability for employment. In the study, Portugal, Greece and Guatemala were found to have the highest UAI with Jamaica, Denmark and Singapore recording the lowest UAI. The next category is power distance which refers to the level to which the not powerful members in a society accept and expect that power will be inequitably distributed. The basic problem here is the inequality of man that is embedded in every particular society inhabited by man. In the study by Hofstede, power distance was measured in a Power Distance Index (PDI) with varying values and attitudes being noted between countries with high and low PDI values. High PDI values were reported in Malaysia and Mexico with the low ones reported in Denmark and Austria. The other category is individualism versus collectivism which denotes the extent to which individuals are expected to look after themselves or remain in groups. A basic problem that exists here is positioning oneself between these extremes. The highest scores of individualism as measured in an Individualism Index (IDV) were recorded in the United States, Great Britain and Australia with the lowest scores in Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama.
Masculinity versus Femininity category is concerned with the distribution of emotional roles between genders, which in itself is a key problem in the society. It has been found almost universally that women take more interest in social goals such as relationships, physical environment and helping others while men are keen on ego boosting ideals such as careers and money. Despite this, Hofstede found out that the importance attached to this was varying depending on the various countries and across different careers. In these cultural differences, men are to be assertive and focused on material success while women are supposed to be tender and more concerned with the quality of life. Countries which exhibited high masculinity at work were Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Mexico, Colombia and Italy. Great Britain, United States, Ireland, South Africa and Canada recorded above average results while Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands (Hofstede’s home country) had the highest femininity scores. The final relevant category we examine is the long-term versus the short-term orientation which refers to the level to which the members of a culture are programmed to accept a delayed gratification of their socio-economic and emotional needs. According to the scores on the Long-Term Orientation Index, Hofstede showed that Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea had the highest scores while Western countries and a few developing countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Philippines had the lowest scores. It was found that people in the long term cultures were likely to work towards building stronger positions in the markets as they did not anticipate quick results from their endeavors. As such, it was the norm that managers who mainly consisted of family members, to be given time and resources to make their own contributions.
We have demonstrated that there are cultural differences between various countries as to influence management. Having seen that indeed there are cross-cultural differences the world over that influence management; we examine the implication of this, to managers. We begin from the position that managers share in the cultures of their society and of their organizations alongside their cross-cultural teams.
As seen above, the United States is an individualistic country which emphasizes on the management of performance. In the event that a manager seeks to communicate non-enticing news to a worker, he runs no big risk if he tells such an individual. However, this is not so in a collectivist society since such a move could lead to a clash. It may so happen that in such a society, there are usually other indirect ways of showing disapproval with one’s work as a manager. Similarly, in an individualistic society, social norms and the law have a premium over friendships. In collectivist cultures, more attention is given to relationships and friendships as is evident in Asian businesses with the concept of guanxi, where the family is linked to business. Undoubtedly, the various cultures in the society present unique problems which need the development of unique management theories to tackle them.
Conclusion
As is evident from the foregoing, global management can only succeed with proper leadership and good cross-cultural communication, which is only possible if managers understand the cultural differences. The cultural values enable the managers of organizations to understand why people in the society behave in particular ways and thus manage effectively. It helps enhance cross-cultural interactions and self-awareness.
References
Barakat, H. (2007). The Arab World:Society, Culture and State. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.
Dbaibo, D., Harb, C., & van Meurs, N. (2010). Values and Justice as Predictors of Perceived Stress in Lebanese Organizational Settings. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 1-20.
Fischer, R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2012). Are Cultural Values the Same as the value of individuals? An Examination of similarities in personal,social and cultural value structures. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management , 157-170.
Gelfand, M., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology , 479-514.
GlobThink. (2009, June 24). Indirect Communication and indirect leadership in Asia. GlobThink , pp. 1-4.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultural Constraints in Management Theories. Academy of Management Executive vol.7 no.1 , 81-95.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values,behaviors, Institutions, and organizations across nations(2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks:CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jackson, T. (2011). From Cross-Cultural Values to cross-cultural interfaces: Hofstede goes to Africa. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 532-558.
Kalliny, M., Cruthirds, K. W., & Minor, M. S. (2006). Differences Between American,Egyptian and Lebanese Humor Styles Implications for International Management. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management , 121-134.
Kandola, B. (2008). Understanding Cultural Differences in Global Organizations. Asian Enterprise Summer , 37-38.
Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies , 285-320.
Leung, K., & van de Vijver, F. (2008). Strategies for strengthening causal inferences in cross-cultural research: the consilience approach. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management , 145-169.
Levy, O., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2010, August 30). Global expansion dilutes winning corporate cultures. Financial Post , pp. 1-2.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith-a Failure of Analysis. Human Relations , 89-118.
Reus, T., & Lamont, B. (2009). The Double-Edged Sword of cultutral distance in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies , 1298-1316.
Schwartz, S. (2006). A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: explication and applications. Comparative Sociology , 136-182.
Shwartz, S. H. (2006). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Sciences , 19-45.
Smith, P., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (2006). National Culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional;analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Psychology , 231-264.
Smith, P., Peterson, M., & Schwartz, S. (2002). Cultural Values, Sources of guidance and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47 Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 188-208.
Williams, C., & van Triest, S. (2009). The Impact of Corporate and National Cultureson decentralization in multinational corporations. International Business Review , 156-167.
