The capacity of an organization to expand in the international arena faces many challenges related to the need to survive within multicultural environment.
Culture reflects itself in people’s behaviors and communication. Sending a company’s staff overseas to take part in management of newly established outlets or plants, consequently, results to exposing such people in an environment dominated by cultural difference.
A working illustration of such companies is the American Insurance Group, (AIG) which is multinational as well as multicultural. During expansion, it required a multiethnic staff, part of which were outsourced and the rest employed from the new locations (Avruch, & Black, 1993, p. 56).
This resulted in an increased knowledge of their clientele, as well as all their other publics, and better organizational culture, which was favorable for optimal growth as a corporation. Many countries have established legal mechanisms to ensure that their citizens ardently leap from foreign investment institutions.
It therefore follows that an organization cannot simply transfer its work force from its native home holly, but only a small percentage that is in agreement with legal’s mechanisms of the host country (Smith, 1989, p. 78). However, chances are that people will not strike a common ground in as far as cultural understanding is concerned.
One of the reasons why this may occur is perhaps due to the fact that people who have too many personal choices will lose “security and certainty” that they have in their lives when they follow culture and traditions that have been established by past generations (Macionis, 2010, p.51).
The idea that people more often than not live by following their inbuilt instincts further compounds the problem. This instincts are largely driven by the desire protect ones kind (Mora, 2010, p.71). Consequently, before attempting to protect and appreciate that other person’s cultural affiliations, the norm is to protect one’s culture first.
Unfortunately, “cultural differences are harder to adapt to because they are not natural to the individuals native home” (Macionis, 2010, p.57). To Kurtz, humans live by instincts more of comparable to animals (2004, p.1). Kurtz’s concern is that instincts have the capacity to render an individual to react in a manner that would , ensure he or her has protected what he or she has always held. Culture is no exception of such things requiring immense protection.
Companies seeking to expand overseas, therefore, need to orient themselves to be fully compliant with the cultural demand of their new territories.
Forecasting likelihoods of conflicts between cultures turns out problematic especially while Karl Max concerns are brought into picture. He observes that, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being but it is their social being that determines their consciousness” (Macionis, 2010, p.77). From his perspective point of view, socialization has to come first before conscious decisions to act.
How then could one structure his or her work team to be culturally sensitive in the new territories? George peter, a sociologist, attempts to provide a solution to this interrogative and advises on how “comparative analysis qualifies as the key to studying culture” (New World Encyclopedia, n.d). Planning also needs be done within the native home of an organization since “business abroad always does not go to plan” (Ambrosio, 1993, p.36).
As part of planning, the operations of the company in the foreign countries need also to encompass strategies that are vital in aiding to avoid the intercultural conflicts among the staff and customers of an organization.
What have companies done to cope with cultural diversities?
Amid the many intercultural differences and the complexity of the problem of homogenizing various cultures, companies do not just shun from investing in the foreign countries in fear of cultural misunderstandings. Google is perhaps one of the companies that have learnt greatly from its mistakes.
The company had presumed that it could penetrate the Chinese market with its policies unaltered to incorporate the Chinese cultural perspectives. The company had to consider addressing the mistakes that it thought it had let loose right from the start (Lane, 2010, Para. 5).
They had thus to tailor their web sites to warrant compliance with the governments rules pertaining to information censorship. “…they also failed to take into consideration what it meant for Chinese people to have more freedom to access information, something many other cultures take for granted” (D’Altorio, 2010, p.56).
Also, in the sphere of Chinese cultural diversities, Google had to consider to tailor make their website to minimize the amount of data inputs during the navigation process since the Chinese language has many characters.
Majority of the companies also considers posting their new recruits to various destinations across the globe, as a way of ensuring they get to acquit themselves with deferent cultures of people forming part of their customer base before promotion into senior management positions. It is impossible to view others fairly when preexistent notions about them are clouding one’s judgment (Du Praw, & Marye, 2010, p. 65).
Such policies have the capacity to allow only those individual with wealth of information pertaining to what communications, practices or methodologies of administration might result to cultural miss-understanding. The manager can thus develop styles of communication, relationships with the employees and empowerments initiatives reflective of the existing working environment cultural diversities.
References
Ambrosio, J. (1993). Global software? Computer world,27(31), 74. Web.
Avruch, A., & Black, P. (1993). Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and Prejects. In D. &. Sandole, Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application (pp. 32-89). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
D’Altorio, T. (2010). Investment U. The Number One Reason Why Google Failed In China…and a Big One. Web.
Du Praw, M., & Marye, H. (2010). Working on Common Cross-Cultural Communication Challenges. Sociology Today, 34 (1), 76-99.
Kurtz, S. (24). Small Group Discussion Board. Retrieved from AIU Online Virtual Campus. Sociology: SSCI210-1103B:10 website.
Lane, D. (2010). Misdirection. Aryan Nations website. Web.
Macionis, J. (2010). Sociology: A Global Introduction, (13 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mora, V. (2011). Discussion Board Post. Web.
New World Encyclopedia. Murdock, George Peter. Web.
Smith, D. (1989). The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienation in the Academy? Washington DC: Report No. 5. School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.