Brief Examination of the Issue and Concept
Conceptually, culture is a wide and multi-faceted term. In some way, it defines the kind of people we are and how we socialize with one another on the regional and national fronts (Tosti, 2002).
Best described as a system of values and norms with acquired behaviors which are shared within a certain community, culture indeed offers a sense of belonging to some group. It influences the mannerism of communication styles, values, and history of people or organizations.
Due to these, it is sufficient to point out that every organization has an organizational culture that determines its missions and objectives. However, the world has seen operational change to incorporate different cultures within an organization.
This offers the challenge in learning how to deal with collective cultures within a company. Organizations need to be savvy in learning how to respond to demands of a multi-cultural environment as discussed.
The US Culture
To attain business objectives and sustain profitability levels, firms depend on proper business communication protocols (Zhu & Bhat, 2006). The US communication protocol has been very egalitarian for some time. This means that its focus has been on attaining the objectives of the business and nothing more.
Communication is strictly structured in a top-bottom communication with too much bureaucracy, hence inhibiting forms of communication within an organization. The tactics for HRM focuses solely on management of the objective model and the end pay for the performance of each individual person.
The organizational culture evidenced at firm’s headquarters may seriously have an impact on the absolute organizational culture. Certain unique elements determine the nature of corporate culture.
They are the kind of relationship between the workers and the company’s administration, the nature of the hierarchical model of command and the general viewpoint of the workers concerning the future of the company.
This also includes the company’s mission and objectives as well as the individual responsibilities in organizational matters.
The value which can be derived from company’s employees can be measured by the level of productivity attained by their performance and the degree to which they participate in the achievement of the general company’s goals.
This means that the communication protocol evidenced in the case of the United States can highly be inhibitive in the performance of people in a multicultural context.
Such a culture in the US has been fueled by the command at the headquarters which trickles down to individuals within the organizations. The effect is that there is lack of team building, cohesiveness, and participation in the important matters of the business (Martin & Charney, 2006).
Theoretical Concepts and Applications
The challenges created in communication to people from a different culture are obvious as it is shown in the case of the US. Most people will form rapport based on their orientations within their cultural norms (Vamer & Beamer, 2005).
Relying on the social capital theory and the significance of social networks, intercultural communication is important for a good business relationship.
Developing a good connection, therefore, dictates that it is done within the socio-cultural and economic backgrounds of the individual cultures at play and based on the various cultures which form varying strategies which can be used to sustain business relationships.
However, the egalitarian system, such as in the United States, offers challenges in how to communicate with people from a collective culture. By basing all the objectives on the attainment of profits and objectives, much is left unattended to.
The employees of a company are supposed to be the most prized assets. Hence all the business communication protocols have to be designed in a manner that considers them. If the employees are able to freely communicate due to a collective culture, then the business operations are boosted.
The US system, therefore, does not provide the best model for people from diverse cultures to form business rapport and boost cohesiveness at the workplace.
Recommendations
In my view, several things can be done to decrease the likelihood of communication misunderstandings, most importantly, enhancing intercultural communication. For instance, Carter (2005) suggests that building a perfect business relationship needs a sense of global fluency.
This type of fluency is described as institutions with cultural behaviors that assist a company to succeed and thrive in ever-transforming business environment. It offers a competitive edge to form and sustain perfect business relationships.
To ensure that individuals efficiently work with the others from varying cultures, cross-cultural training helps workers be informed about cross-cultural communication relative to their individual cultural orientations, behaviors, and beliefs.
Cross-cultural communication also includes global business decorum starting with the way people greet each other up to the general attitudes at work.
This could also include the dressing code at the workplace as well as forms of nonverbal communication between people. To avoid one being offensive, it is important to know the variations in the greetings forms available, for example, the handshake.
In conclusion, organizations should indeed learn how to respond to demands of a multi-cultural context. This will improve performance and communication. The result is that performance is absolutely improved.
References
Carter, L. (2005). Best Practices in Leading the Global Workforce. Burington, MA: Linkage
Martin, J.S. & Chaney, L. H. (2006). Global Business Etiquette: A guide to International Communication and Customs. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Tosti, D. T. (2002). Global Fluency. In K. Beaman (Ed.), Boundaryless HR: Human Capital Management in the Global Economy (pp. 109-119). Austin, TX: Rector Duncan & Associates, Inc.
Vamer, L & Beamer, L. (2005). Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. London: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Zhu, Y & Bhat, R. (2006). A Cross Cultural Study of Communication Strategies for Building Business Relationships. London: Prentice Hall.