Introduction
In recent years universities in many countries have integrated international and intercultural knowledge and understanding into the students’ education or curriculum. Cross-cultural and international comprehension has become a crucial issue to the cultural, political, technological and economic health of a state or nation. Therefore, it is necessary for one to understand the above mentioned terms in order to function efficiently and comfortably in a globe illustrated by close permeable borders and comprehensive relationships. There is need to have a specific degree of world competence to comprehend the place people stay and the way they fit into this sphere (Bartell 2003, p.46).
Cross-cultural management tends to bring together comparatively unrelated or distinct models like cultural anthropology and accomplished models or areas of communication. Its main purpose is to start and comprehend how different individuals from different cultures communicate or relate with one another. The study of different languages helps one in comprehending what people have in common and also assist in comprehending the diversity that underlies languages, methods of creating and organizing knowledge and the several different realities that people live and interact with (Rugman & Hodgets 1995, Par.13). Such understanding has great influence and consequences because it helps one to have adequate knowledge of social relationships. The experience of an individual is culturally important and the issues of language are also culturally essential (Rhymes 2008, par.8). This paper will evaluate the contributions of two cross-cultural management theorists in understanding and resolving international management issues. It is of great importance to discuss these cross-cultural management theories since most managers who work in a mix of cultures find themselves in dilemmas.
Major theories
The major theories of cross-cultural management are named or based on what has been done depending on the different values between various cultures particularly the works of Fonts Trompenaars, Nancy Adler, Edgar Schein, Edward T. Hall, Geert Hofstede and Richard D. Lewis (Warner & Joynt P 2002, P.10).
Geert Hofstede framework for evaluating culture
A study carried out by Geert Hofstede gives a clear understanding about other cultures so that one can be more efficient when relating with individuals from other nations. When this type of information or data is comprehended and implemented appropriately it should minimize one’s level of anxiety, concern and frustration (Itim International 2009, par. 3). Geert Hofstede argues that culture is a basis of conflict rather than of synergy, and differences in culture are a great nuisance and mostly a disaster. His research shows that there are regional and national cultural groupings, which influence the character or behavior of organizations and societies and they are persistent throughout the year (Itim International 2009, par.12)
Geert Hofstede has discussed five dimensions of culture in his research which are as follows. Firstly, there is the low versus high power distance. This dimension assesses the level at which less powerful individuals in an organization or institution agree and anticipate that power is disseminated unequally. Cultures that have low power distance like Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and Austria, individuals anticipate and agree power relationships that are more democratic and consultative. Individuals interact with each other equally despite their formal positions. Subsidiaries are more at ease and demand the chance to make contributions and critique the decisions made by the individuals in power (Hofstede 2009, par.13).
On the other hand, cultures that have high power distance like Malaysia, the less mighty members anticipate and admit power associations, which are paternalistic or tyrannical. Hence, subsidiaries recognize the power of other people depending on their formal or official, hierarchical placement. Therefore, low versus high power distance does not look at culture in terms of its goals but instead it looks at the way individuals comprehend power differences. In summary, power and inequality are tremendously fundamental bases of any country or society and anyone who has experiences from different countries knows that all countries including societies are unequal; however, some have greater inequalities that others (Clearly Cultural n.d, par. 4).
Secondly, there is the individualism versus collectivism dimension, which evaluates the level at which individuals of the culture describe themselves despite their group memberships. In individualist cultures, individuals are anticipated to create and exhibit or display their personalities and to select their own relationships or affiliations. In individualist cultures, people within a society have loose ties between themselves and everybody is required or supposed to cater for her or himself and her or his family members. In collectivist cultures, individuals are described and they act as people of lasting association or group like a religious group, family, or town among others (Hofstede 1994, p.32). Therefore, in corporate customs, societies have individuals who are incorporated into cohesive strong in-groups since birth onwards, which are mostly extended families that persist to guard them in exchange for unquestioning allegiance. For instance, in a country like Germany, individuals insist on individuals’ rights and personal achievements. Group work is significant, but everyone has the chance or right of his or her opinion and is anticipated to show them. A country like Germany, which has individualism, persons are likely to have relationships that are looser when compared to other countries that embrace the idea of collectivism where individuals have large families like extended families (Hofstede 2001, p.35).
The third dimension is masculinity versus femininity. This dimension assesses the value that people place on the conventionally female or male as many of the Western cultures comprehend it. It refers to the manner in which roles and responsibilities are distributed between males and females within the society. In masculine cultures, individuals value assertiveness, ambition, competitiveness and accumulation of money or wealth. On the other hand, in feminine cultures, individuals value quality of life, caring and relationships (Hofstede 2005, p.17).
In addition, there is the fourth dimension which is called low versus high uncertainty avoidance. It simply refers to the concept of searching for the truth. The dimension points out the extent in which a culture programs its people to be comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured or free circumstances or situations. The dimension assesses the level at which people in a society tend to put up with the anxiety by reducing or minimizing uncertainty by implementing strict rules and laws, security and safety measures and setting religious and philosophical levels by a belief in complete truth (Punnett & Withane 1990, P.78). For instance, in Germany, there is high uncertainty avoidance when compared to other countries like Denmark and Singapore. People in Germany are known not to be attentive to uncertainty, by planning or arranging everything cautiously, they tend to obviate the uncertainty. In addition, there are societies in Germany that depend on laws, regulations and rules. On the contrary, uncertainty avoidance in the United States is low when compared to German culture. Cultures that have high levels of uncertainty avoidance, individuals opt for clear rules and officially structured responsibilities. Moreover, workers tend to cope up well and longer with their managers or employers. On the contrary, cultures that have low doubtfulness avoidance, individuals opt for flexible guidelines and unofficial responsibilities or activities. Hence, workers seems to alternate their employers so often (McSweeney 2002, p.90).
Finally, Geert Hofstede later integrated the fifth dimension called long versus short term orientation into his framework. This dimension was incorporated in order to clearly bring in the difference between the West and East manner of thinking. The dimension defines the time horizon of the society or the significance attached or incorporated to the future versus the present and past. In lasting oriented societies, individuals treasure attitudes and actions, which have effects on the future like shame, perseverance and thrift. On the other hand, societies with short term orientation, individuals value attitudes and actions, which have been affected by the present or past such as gifts, immediate stability, respect for traditions, normative statements and favors among others (Hofstede 1980, P.97).
Fons Trompnaars framework for evaluating culture
The second cross-cultural management theorist to be evaluated in this paper is called the Fons Trompnaars who had a framework of culture having seven dimensions. He was interested in exploring and focusing on the differences in culture between particularist societies and Universalist societies. Universalist societies obey or follow the laws and rules, and think that the guidelines they uphold are the right ones. Therefore, they tend to make every person agree to those laws and rules. On the other hand, particularist societies think that specific or particular situations are more significant than common rules and that one’s response relies on the situations and the specific individuals who are concerned or involved (Handy n.d, p.1).
Countries with particularist dimension, believe that the association is more significant than the contract. Moreover, an excellent deal does not need a written contract. Therefore, the particular circumstance or situation and particular individuals are more important than the universal rules. On the other hand, Universalist nations view contracts to be of great importance and they tend to hire many lawyers to ensure that the contract is maintained (Trompenaars 2000, p.76).
The first five dimensions cover the different methods people use to interact with one another. The other two focus on the ways in which societies view time and the cultural attitudes towards the environment. These orientations include particularism versus universalism, which assess or evaluate between rules and relationships which of the two is important. In addition, there is collectivism versus individualism, emotional versus neutral, diffuse versus specific, aspiration versus achievement, synchronic versus sequential and finally there is external versus internal control (Hampden & Trompenaars 1994, pp 153-156).
The second dimension used by Fons Trompenaars is individualism versus collectivism or communitarianism. This dimension tends to consider who is important that is individual or group or family. American culture says that an individual is important while Chinese culture says that a group is important. Both the individual and society or group improves standards hence; this is the confusion or dilemma that is shown by the dimension. Studies carried out shows that Canada and the United States are the countries known to be individualist while France, Japan and Singapore are known because of their communitarian policies (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane 1992, P.68). Therefore, it is clear that all pioneer capitalist nations are individualist. However, a community culture can assist other nations to develop for instance Singapore, Japan and Taiwan. This is because every culture has its own weaknesses and strengths. Countries with individualist cultures give opportunities to powerful people to handle resources in an extraordinary manner and have led to creation of the biggest giants of capitalism. On the other hand, communitarian culture tends to share troubles or burdens equally. A society that is community based motivates its people to leave a heritage that will be remembered forever. Such cultures develop corporations that have the most excellent output and esprit de corps, organizations where all the members work together with a common interest rather that individual goals(Hampden & Trompenaars 2000, pp 346-353).
When it comes into business issues, individualist cultures tend to consider the shareholder more importance while communitarian culture believes on stakeholder rather than shareholder. Businesses with individualist culture view their employees as tools that are owned or employed by the shareholders. On the other hand, businesses with communitarian culture view the labor-force or man-power as an extended family that need to be protected at all times even though the times are tough. Fons Trompenaars says that each culture depend on the other hence there is need to recognize every culture. The thing that makes a community active is its capability to raise and produce individuality. However, what makes the life of an individual meaningful is the work one does for the society or community (Handy n.d, p.6).
Moreover, neutral or impartial versus emotional elements measure whether people do demonstrate their feelings or they do not. Specific versus diffuse element tends to assess whether responsibilities are assigned to specific people or are accepted partially. In addition, sequential versus synchronic dimension tends to evaluate whether things are done at a time many things are carried out at once and finally internal versus external dimension measures whether people control their environment or surrounding or the environment control them (Warner & Joynt P 2002, P.110).
In Summary, Fons Trompenaars argues that culture can be viewed as an onion which is composed of three layers; the inner layer, middle layer or norms layer and outer or observable layer. The observable layer is what people basically relate to the culture like visual behavior, clothing, language and food within an institution or organization. The middle layer mirrors the values and norms that are upheld by an organization or country. Norms shows what the country or organization judge or think is wrong or right while values represent what is bad and what is good. The last layer which is the inner layer of the culture is hard for any outsider to notice or detect. It is the implicit culture that is unquestioned and it is the most difficult to alter. For example, bowing is one of the cultures of the Japanese and it is of great importance to understand this culture in order to function properly with the people. Hence according to Fons Trompenaars, every particular culture should be recognized and respected (Trompenaars & Woolliams 2000, p24).
Conclusion
In conclusion, for effective management of crises by managers who are working in a mix of cultures, it is of great importance to understand the different theories of cross-cultural management. This is because every culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. Hence, all cultures should be recognized and respected since they are important.
Reference list
Bartell, M., 2003. Internationalization of universities. A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 46.
Bluedorn, A., Kaufman, C., & Lane, p., 1992. How Many Things Do You Like to Do at Once? An Introduction to Monochronic and Polychronic Time? Academy of Management Executive.
Clearly Cultural, Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Web.
Handy, C., The Handy Guide to the Gurus of Management Programme 13 – Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden Turner. Web.
Hampden, M., & Trompenaars, F., 2000. Building Cross-Cultural Competence.
Hampden, M., & Trompenaars, F., 1994. The seven cultures of capitalism. Value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, 27, (6):153-156.
Hofstede, G (1980) Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., 1994. Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Co-operation and its Importance for Survival. London: Harper Collins.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hofstede, G., 2005. Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind (Revised and expanded 2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Itim International, 2009. What are Hofstede’s five Cultural Dimensions? Web.
Itim International, 2009. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Web.
McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences. A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1): 89–118. Web.
Punnett, B., & Withane, C., 1990. Adapted from Hofstede’s Value Survey Module: To Embrace or Abandon? Advances in International Comparative Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rugman, A.M. & Hodgets R.M. (1995). International Business. A Strategic Management Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rymes, K., 2008. Language Socialization and the Linguistic Anthropology of Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education.
Trompenaars, F., & Woolliams, P., 2000. When Two Worlds Collide.
Trompenaars, F., 2000. Building Cross-cultural Competence. How to Create Wealth From Conflicting Values. Web.
Warner, M. & Joynt P., 2002. Managing Across Cultures. Issues and Perspectives. London: Thomson Learning.