Culture, if viewed in a broad sense, includes both material and spiritual means of human activity, which are created by a person. The material and spiritual realities created by human creative labour are called artefacts, that is, artificially created. Thus, artefacts of materialistic or spiritual values are not natural in origin, but are conceived and created by an individual as a social by-product. Although he/she uses them as the source for practical objectives, societal behaviour of the given culture acts in accordance with laws of human nature. On closer examination, it turns out that a person belongs to the class of artefacts (Lee, Howe, & Kreiser, 2019). On the one hand, it arose as a result of the evolution of nature, has a natural origin, lives and acts as a material being, and on the other hand, it is a spiritual and social being, lives and acts as a creator, carrier and consumer of spiritual values, which nature itself is not able to create.
A person is a product not only of nature but also of culture. He/she is not so much a biological being, as a social one, and his/her nature is not so much material as spiritual. The essence of a person includes the qualities and properties of both natural, material, primarily biological and physiological, and spiritual, non-material, produced by culture and intellectual work, artistic, scientific or technical creativity (Lumby & Foskett, 2016). Due to the fact that human is a spiritual and material being by nature, he/she uses both corresponding artefacts (Nyarugwe, Linnemann, Hofstede, Fogliano, & Luning, 2016). To meet material needs, he/she produces and consumes food, clothing, housing, creates equipment, materials, buildings, structures, roads.
In order to meet spiritual needs, cultural aspect of a person creates artistic values, moral and aesthetic ideals, political, ideological and religious ideas, science and art. Therefore, human activity spreads through all channels of both material and spiritual culture (Striphas, 2015). That is why one can regard human as the initial system-forming factor in the development of culture (Hamamura & Xu, 2015). An individual creates and uses the world of things and the world of ideas that revolves around him/her, and its role is the role of the creator, and its place in culture is the place of the centre of the creation of artefacts, that is, the centre of culture. Thus, culture is a manifestation of human achievement.
In conclusion, structural integrity is manifested in the fact that cultural values ​​correlate in a hierarchical way. They are categorised, ranked and some of them have a central and fundamental place, and others are secondary and derivative, some of them have common and total meaning, others are local and specific. Material culture is more directly and explicitly determined by the qualities and properties of natural objects, the kind of forms of matter, energy and information that are used by man as raw materials or ingredients for the creation of objects and products of human existence.
The activities of any organisation cannot be carried out only on the basis of technology or management hierarchy. At the enterprise, people act and are guided by specific values, which allows them to build relationships with each other, perform rituals rooted among the group. The culture of an organisation (organisational culture, corporate culture) is not only an original mixture of values, attitudes, norms, habits, traditions, forms of behaviour and rituals, but also the whole habitat of an organisation, its inherent style of attitudes and behaviour. An organisation’s culture is a well-coordinated set of organisational, managerial, technological and informal interpersonal relationships, which is achieved at a certain level of development of activities and knowledge.
The corporate culture theory currently spreading around the world is a variant of combining Japanese and American management styles. The main purpose of the organisation’s culture is to create a sense of identity for all members of the organisation, an image of the collective “we” (Block & Noumair, 2017). All these types of cultures are “being” cultures, which are a product of transformation (Block & Noumair, 2015). For instance, market (entrepreneurial) culture is based on the domination of value relations, therefore, management and staff are guided mainly by profitability. Efficiency is determined on the basis of cost indicators, primarily related to production costs. It develops primarily in trade organisations, sales organisations, retail trade, partly with computer manufacturers (Groves, 2016). Real estate brokers, financial brokers, car dealers, home delivery services, as well as for small retail trade are examples of market culture (Groves, 2016). Enterprises with this type of culture can work normally for a long time, and they are effective.
The bureaucratic (administrative) culture is based on a system of government that regulates all the activities of an enterprise in the form of rules, instructions and procedures. The source of power in this organisation is competence and professionalism in the field (Wai Li, Masuda, & Jiang, 2016). This culture is effective in stable, well-predictable situations. However, in times of crisis, the given efficiency drops significantly (Fu, Zhang, Li, & Leung, 2016). Clan culture is not an alternative to the first two, but their addition can exist within both a market and bureaucratic culture. Clan culture is common in informal organisations. The clan is formed on the basis of any value system shared by all its members (Groves, 2016). Moreover, this system of values ​​is not imposed from the outside, but is created by the organisation itself and is more adaptive to change.
In conclusion, the main feature of organisational culture is its variability, which is not sufficient to fully provide the transformation in the hope of the autonomous existence of this system. As practice shows, the need to reform the corporate culture arises from the quantitative change of personnel, mergers and acquisitions, the consolidation of assets within a single holding, the change of managers and business processes, business diversification.
The problem of interaction and mutual understanding of cultures is particularly relevant for the modern world in connection with the complex processes of modernising society that it experiences, the profound transformation of global culture and tense interethnic relations. The expansion of intercultural contacts often entails crises and destructive phenomena that cause the active interest of various sciences: philosophy, cultural and social anthropology, cultural studies. Therefore, in an attempt to understand each other, representatives of different cultures often have difficulties and obstacles that interfere with their mutual understanding and can lead to conflict situations.
In the broad sense of the word, the concept of “barriers” denotes problems that arise in the process of interaction and reduce its effectiveness. At the same time, analysing the causes of the emergence of various barriers to intercultural communication allows one to group them into the main types: language barriers, non-verbal barriers and barriers of stereotypes and prejudices (Wright & Buck, 2016). Language barriers in intercultural communication arise because representatives of different cultures use different models of perception of social reality through symbolic systems. They are reflected in the language constructions used, the styles of oral and written communication (Razai, 2018). Linguistic problems often become the first and most memorable difficulties in communicating with people from other cultures.
Non-verbal behaviour performs important functions in the process of intercultural communication, but the symbols used may have different meanings for the participants in the interaction (Wood, Wofford, & Hassinger, 2018). Their mismatch can influence the effectiveness of communication. In most cases, the observed discrepancy causes surprise and anxiety at first, which seems strange and unusual. However, over time, there is an adaptation for a previously uncommon environment, which leads to the involuntary reproduction of signs borrowed from partners.
In addition, there are common barriers of stereotypes and prejudices. The peculiarities of national and ethnic consciousness of representatives of different cultures often act as barriers to intercultural interactions (Pekerti & Thomas, 2015). There is an observed trend towards ethnocentrism is the tendency to negatively evaluate representatives of another culture through the prism of standards (Bell & Riol, 2017). Stereotyping of ethnic consciousness is manifested in the formation of simplified images of representatives of their own and other cultures. Prejudice is a result of selective inclusions in the process of intercultural contacts, including sensory perception.
In conclusion, the main way to overcome barriers in intercultural communication is the formation of intercultural competence by improving cultural education and tolerance. The presence of barriers in intercultural communication is a stimulus for the development of intercultural competence, because it puts the individual in the need to obtain new knowledge about the culture of partners, makes them improve their own communication skills, develop the ability to feel the characteristics and mentality of a foreign culture. Thanks to these processes, the individual is able to adequately anticipate the prospects of communication with representatives of other cultures, more effectively achieve the goals of intercultural interaction, satisfy their cultural needs in a better way.
All forms of conflict unfold in a specific cultural context. Thus, if culture determines the way of thinking and behaviour of people in the most diverse life situations, then it does the same in situations of conflict. Conflict is the continuation of interaction between people through other means and its peaceful cooperation takes place within a culture. In any society, there is a more or less unified system of morality that imposes restrictions on the behaviour of people in general and their behaviour in the conflict in particular.
Conflicts always occur in the legal framework established by state laws and mostly possess a form of the “win-win” approach. Deviations from the principles of morality and the rule of law are possible, but they are condemned by public opinion and persecuted by law enforcement agencies of the state. It is very important in any conflict not to diverge from moral and legal norms (Barakat & Brooks, 2016). Thus, in order to reduce tensions and peacefully resolve conflict relations, conflicting parties should reach agreement on any special rules governing the procedures for contacts between them (Wang, 2017). Cultural conflict is understood as the critical stage of the contradictions of value-normative attitudes, orientations, positions, judgments between individuals, between different communities or their associations (Wang, 2017). When conflicting parties belong to the same cultural circle (to the same subculture), there is a significant similarity between them in the level of knowledge and education. These commonalities are shown through the values ​​and ideals to which they aspire, in moral norms and rules of communication.
However, it is not easy and dangerous to go beyond the customs and norms of behaviour adopted in their cultural environment. This can make a person an outcast and thrown out of the familiar environment (Fishman, 2014). Therefore, people of the same cultural circle subordinate their behaviour in conflict to the same general principles and, apart from the features associated with their personality-psychological traits, behave in a rather similar way (Halbreich, 2018). The problem of cultural conflicts is always connected with the lack of tolerance, with an interest in the culture of other societies and the search for points of value coincidences or intersections. Due to the fact that the physical and mental nature of humanity is more or less the equal, the basic value attitudes of each person and the whole society are the same type (Murayama, Ryan, Shimizu, Kurebayashi, & Miura, 2014). They are based on the similar anthropological and mental foundations of interests and needs.
In conclusion, the given issue makes it possible to look for coinciding value paradigms in the cultures of different communities and their social groups and to manifest them for the prevention of cultural conflicts. It is necessary to find points of convergence of values, relationships to peace among the conflicting parties in order to relieve the tension between the key points of the contradictions, and this is the main task of any policy.
References
Barakat, M., & Brooks, J. S. (2016). When globalization causes cultural conflict: Leadership in the context of an Egyptian/American school. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19(4), 3-15.
Fishman, T. T. (2014). The elephant in the courtroom: Judicial reaction to cultural conflict criminal cases. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 14(3), 462-481.
Halbreich, U. (2018). Micro-migration: Global domestic intergenerational cultural conflict. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 64(6), 519-520.
Murayama, A., Ryan, C. S., Shimizu, H., Kurebayashi, K., & Miura, A. (2014). Cultural differences in perceptions of intragroup conflict and preferred conflict-management behavior: A scenario experiment show all authors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 88-100.
Wang, J. (2017). Strategies for managing cultural conflict: Models review and their applications in business and technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48(3), 281-294.