It is an ascertained fact that an understanding of the national culture and local peculiarities of business environment “can give managers an advantage in competitive industries” (Deresky, 2003, p. 90). However, if managers ignore cultural aspects in building productive business relations with their foreign partners, such ignorance might turn into minor troubles and lack of understanding or even into a serious breach of business relations between companies or economic relations between countries on the whole.
Therefore, in order to hold the meeting efficiently and with success and to help the foreign parties from different cultures get together and engage with each other, in the process of preparation for the meeting I have to prepare extremely carefully and elaborately to avoid all the possible cultural silos. In the first place, in the capacity of a manager responsible for the construction of fast-food restaurants on the basis of the franchise agreement, I have to familiarize myself with the cultures of China, Israel, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, specifically with their economic, political, educational, and social systems. It is also of paramount importance to take into consideration the contrasting values of all these countries and their cultural dimensions.
A real professional has to understand how basic values underlie organizational behavior of representatives of different cultures and their behavioral patterns within the frames of business communication. On the ground of his research on over 115,000 representatives in 50 countries, Hofstede put forward an idea of 4 cultural value dimensions, namely “power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity”. This system was introduced for the fundamental purpose of aiding people in the understanding of different cultures and, consequently, adapting their communication style with regard to the peculiarities of cultural dimensions of each country (see table 1).
Differences and Similarities among Cultural Dimensions of the USA, China, Israel, Mexico, and the UAE
The first cultural dimension, which is referred to as power distance, “is the level of acceptance by a society of the unequal distribution of power in institutions” (Deresky, 2003, p. 100). In other words, in states in which individuals demonstrate high level of power distance, including countries like China, UAE, and Mexico, employees recognize and accept the authority of their bosses and all the men higher up by respecting those individuals’ formal statuses and positions in the hierarchy. As a result, individuals displaying high power distance “seldom bypass the chain of command” (Deresky, 2003, p. 101). Therefore, while preparing for the meeting, I have to take into consideration that the parties from China, UAE, and Mexico are likely to respect authority and hierarchy and are not likely to bypass even for the purpose of achieving their deceptive purposes.
In the meantime, countries where individuals display low level of power distance, such as USA and Israel, chiefs and their employees, as a general rule, “regard one another as equal in power, resulting in more harmony and cooperation” (Deresky, 2003, p. 101). Therefore, I should expect that representatives of Israel will be more actively cooperating with me during the meeting. Consequently, the major goal during this meeting would be to encourage parties from Mexico, China, and UAE to participate and cooperate actively and engage in during the whole meeting.
One of the most significant and determining value dimensions is the level of individualism of each culture. The most fundamental feature of individualistic cultures, such as USA and Israel, is valuing and appreciating personal independence, which in its turn places special emphasis upon individual responsibility and liberty of choice, as well as upon “personal autonomy, and achieving self-fulfillment” (Neuliep, 2011, p. 48). In other words, individualism of the party from Israel might present a challenge for the interaction of the entire group during the meeting, as “individualists strive to maintain distinctive personal attitudes and opinions and prefer self-directed behavior and independence of groups, and tend to see themselves as distinguished and unique from others” (Neuliep, 2011, p. 48).
On the other hand, according to Beukman (2005), individuals who display low level of individualism, including people from China, UAE and Mexico, tend to perceive themselves always as part of a group and, consequently, are likely to pay a lot of attention to group interest and focus on achieving consensus rather than pursuing personal goals. Therefore, I should expect that parties from the above-mentioned countries will be more likely to cooperate effectively and even make concessions in order to achieve common goal.
“The fourth value dimension, masculinity, refers to the degree of traditionally “masculine” values - assertiveness, materialism, and a lack of concern for others - that prevail in a society” (Deresky, 2003, p. 102). In highly masculine societies, including Mexico and United Arab Emirates, women are typically viewed as housekeepers whose only duty is to stay home and bring up the children. Therefore, I should be prepared that there probably won’t be female representatives from Mexico and UAE at the meeting.
The fifth dimension - indulgence versus restraint – “describes how much members of a society try to control their impulses and desires” (Shi & Veenstra, 2015, p, 1). Representatives of Israeli and Mexican cultures are typically considered to be indulgent. Therefore, one should be prepared that parties from these countries may act impulsively and the representatives might be ‘quick on the trigger’. On the other hand, representatives of Emirati and Chinese cultures tend to be much more restraint. “Indulgent societies tend to allow relatively free gratification of natural human desires with respect to enjoying life and having fun whereas restraint societies are more prone to believe that such gratification should be curbed and regulated by strict norms” (Shi & Veenstra, 2015, p, 9). Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to take these differences into consideration while preparing for the meeting and, probably, avoid topics that may potentially evolve into a serious dispute on the ground of lack of understanding of each other’s lifestyles and life values.
The last dimension is referred to as ‘Orientation’, which simply defines whether members of a society from one culture expect to have business relations with others for an extended period of time or for a much shorter period. Businessmen from China and the United Arab Emirates typically expect long-term business relations, while those from Mexico and Israel tend to be aimed at short-term business relations. Considering that the fast-food franchise is a time-consuming project, it is very important to communicate this idea to all the parties and prepare them for long-term cooperation by explaining all the benefits of it and profits they will gain.
Taking into consideration all the contrasting cultural values of countries that will be represented during the meeting, it is of fundamental importance, to prepare for the meeting with due regard for their peculiarities.
References
Beukman, T. M. (2005). Culture, Values and Work Related Values - A Theoretical Overview. In The Effect of Selected Variables on Leadership Behavior within the Framework of a Transformational Organization Paradigm (Pp. 19-80). University of Pretoria.
Deresky, H. (2013). Chapter 3. Understanding the Role of Culture. In International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures: Text and Cases (8th ed., International Marketing Managing Across Borders and Cultures, pp. 87-123). Prentice Hall.
Neuliep, J. W. (2011). The Cultural Context. In Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (5th ed., pp. 45-91). SAGE Publications.
Shi, W., & Veenstra, K. (2015). The Moderating Effect of Cultural Values on the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance (Doctoral dissertation, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 2015) (pp. 1-46). Hamilton, Canada.
