Cross Culture Management

Question: Discuss about the Cross Culture Management. Answer: Introduction There are thousands of culture across the world and every culture having their importance and way to handle their nations working procedures. Moreover, businesses are accomplished in these nations and there are some difference and similarities in their way to do the business, manage their organizations culture and handling team management (Thomas and Peterson 2014). Bian and Forsythe (2012) depicts that cross-cultural management resembles the approach for managing the business team in a different culture and evaluates the differences in practices and preferences of consumers an international business context. The reason for the evaluation of the cross-cultural management among two or more different nation is that some organization took the initiative to modify or adapt some cultural advancement,which makes them not bounded by any barrier of territories (Chanlat et al. 2013). In such approaches, an organization of one nation, implements the positive business procedure of other nation for the betterment of their organization. Intercultural interactions have increased in importance in making the business wider and planning for work in different cultural situations (Bian and Forsythe 2012). The two nations that are taken into consideration for this market assessment are Australia and China. It is also evident that nations culture has the effect on the business managerial decisions, on individualism, on group orientation, the way they communicate with their business counterparts and subordinates, the approach an organization taking for decision-making along with their differences in autocratic approach of leadership (Sultana et al. 2013). Moreover, the differences of cultures also have an impact on superior-subordinate relationships and technique of managing business teams for achieving the business goals and objectives. Thus, in this assessment all these factors are considered in the context of Australia and China. Proper evidence will be provided along with the reason why the business culture of one nation among the two is better and have positive business outcomes. Discussion Geert Hofstede model was utilised in the assessment-1 in order to evaluate the difference between the two nations and their culture for accomplishing the business objectives. These two nations have many differences in their culture and managing their business group for attaining the business goals which is described below. : Geert Hofstede Model for comparison between Australia and China (Source: Geert-hofstede.com 2017) Effect of culture on individualism versus group orientation Individualism represents the scenario of the interdependence that is followed in these two nations. Kawar (2012) highlighted that evaluation of individualism is crucial for assessing the approach for maintaining the business team and self-image to fulfill the organization's objectives. In this context, Geert Hofstede model depicts that score in individualism represents, whether the people in a community desire to work collaboratively or individual (Minkov and Hofstede 2012). During this evaluation, it can also be assessed in which culture the people values their subordinates and family members more than an individual's effort. It is also mentioned in the previous assignment that high score in individualism resembles a culture where people values ones effort more than a combined effort of the family. The score attained by Australia in this context is 90 that signify that Australian people are relying more on the individual effort for attaining a certain goal (Geert-hofstede.com 2017). Sultana et al. (2013) also portray that in terms of organizational behavior, Australian leaders provide job responsibility and roles to the deserving people based on their merit, who shows extraordinary performance. On the other hand, China being scored only 20 signifies a strongly knitted culture, where people believes that combined effort always leads to a positive outcome (Geert-hofstede.com 2017). However, Kawar (2012) argues that, leaders often offer promotions and higher designation to those people, who are close to them. This leads to a controversial situation that is suitable people do not get desirable recognition in Chinese organization. Moreover, in the context of group orientation, Moran et al. (2014) depict that Chinese people prefer to work in a group. Whereas in Australia, group work is avoided until it is an obligation to follow. This is the prime reason that in Australian culture each working personnel accomplished their work according to their job roles and it represents the states of effective employee commitment (Chanlat et al. 2013). On the other hand, Minkov et al. (2013) highlight that in Chinese culture employees are less committed to their work and organization as the working of few employees will drive the entire group. Thus, Chinese managers utilize the Australian business culture of individualism so that effectiveness of the business culture can be enhanced. In Australian culture, leaders allow their subordinates to give suggestions regarding projects and thus each employee enjoys working with each other as they believe knowledge sharing always improves the competencies of an individual. However, th is procedure is not allowed in Chinese culture and they usually follow tried-and-test methods or a directed that is directed by their leaders. Thus, if we considered the definition of the group orientation defined by Taylor and Wilson (2012) that extent to which the individual enjoys and seeks to work with others resembles the group orientation, it can be concluded that group orientation in Australian business is effective compared to the Chinese business culture. Effect of culture on communications Thompson (2013) stated that culture directly affects business communication in both terms- verbal and non-verbal. Chanlat et al. (2013) moreover affirm by stating the cultural attitudes toward business will help businesspersons to communicate efficiently with people with other culture. On the other hand, Almond and Verba (2015) also depicts that if a person ignores the culture in business communication, it leads to the adversity like communication disruptions. It is also evident that if workers do not share the same understanding of goals, processes and expectations, business communication can be disrupted or misinterpreted. It is also stated by Moran et al. (2014) that business culture where people intends to work collaboratively if certain new business ideas are suddenly imposed on employees, there may be a lack of buy-in and the project will fail. Thus, if comparison for Australian and Chinese culture is considered, it is found that there is a lack of communication in Chinese culture. Thompson (2013) also depicts that in Australian culture, businessperson place high significance to the words and they regular communicate with their team members. Moreover, Australian people also promote technology to make their communication effective with their team member (Taylor and Wilson 2012). English is their official language and thus it provides them with an advantage to communicate with their business partners. On the other hand, Cavusgil et al. (2014) portray that Mandarin being the officiallanguage leads to the difficulty in direct communication. However, with the aid of a translator communication with the international market is accomplished. According to the Geert Hofstede model, it is noted that long-term orientation also defines the culture of a nation and this factor also impacts on the business proceedings. Linan et al. (2013) define that long-term orientation resembles a situation where people of a nation desires to hold their tradition to complete their present goals. Taken for instance, Chinese people do not prefer to say no as it causes both embarrassment and loss of face. On the other hand, Australian people are practical and they directly give the feedback even if the answer is not in favour of them. Another example that can be demonstrated here is that China has incorporated technology in their business after a long time than Australians as they prefer to accomplish things traditionally irrespective of the fact that with the use of technology their work will be completed fast than a conventional method. Cavusgil et al. (2014) also depict that Chinese people also lacks responsiveness and emotion as these people use a very limited amount of visual body language and westerners interpret. This may lead to a controversial impact on the international business partners; however, Australian people, however, keep a friendly and relaxing body language, which builds an effective interpersonal relation with the business partners (Thompson 2013). Australians also prefers humour in every aspect of life and they also dislike too much self-promotion during the business communication. Effect of culture on decision-making Popovic et al. (2012) explain that every people, who belong to different cultural backgrounds have different expectations along with their different norms and values. These expectations, norms and values influence their judgments and decisions power. This aspect can be described by explaining that if a person's cultural values traits like honesty and integrity, there will be a tendency for those people to follow ethical decision-making tactics (Kawar 2012). Moreover, Cavusgil et al. (2014) also define that apart from cultural norms and values, situational environmentalso drives the decision-making process. Ferrell and Fraedrich (2015) depict that in Chinese culture, business leaders utilises the concept of the centralized decision-making process that no subordinates are not allowed to make decisions. Leaders often directed their employee to work according to their orders. On the other hand, in Australian culture every personnel are allowed to take participation in decision making programs (Kawar 2012). Another aspect of the Chinese culture is that they take a decision depending on the information of a business or person as they consider these sources of individual power. Thus, Ford and Richardson (2013) stated that in Chinese culture a thing is judged on the basis of their documentary information while in Australian culture the performance and the experience of a person are more valued. Thus, this explanation shows that Chinese culture possesses a feminine culture and Australian culture is masculine in nature as Chinese businesspeople consider the factor of quality of life of their emp loyee while in Australia, valuing success and achievements is a major concern (Geert-hofstede.com 2017). Moreover, the nature for valuing the experience and traditional proceeding makes Chinese business-person not to trust on the coded data. They prefer to develop their own business approach by designing a new technology that makes it easier to achieve their objectives of activities. While on the other hand, Coenen et al. (2012) depict that in Australian culture they prefer to use new technology that is arrived in the market. Craft (2013) argues that even though adapting modern and recent technology in the business provides the organization with a competitive advantage; it has a negative consequence that Australian organizations have to change their working procedure according to the changing technology. Whereas, Chinese people designs their technology by considering the concept of long- term planning, which provides them accomplishing their business goals through their developed technology also in the future (Almond and Verba 2015). Autocratic versus delegated leadership A leadership style, where an individual take control over all decisions and little input from the group are considered is known as autocratic leadership traits (Bader 2015). It is also known as authoritarianleadership. Craft (2013) explains that in this case, leaders make choices based on their ideas and judgments and advice from followers are rarely accepted. On the contrary to the autocratic leadership, delegative leadership styles resembles a situation where decision-making power are hands-off to a group or other managing authorities for taking effective decisions. According to the previous analysis, it can be stated that Chinese culture autocratic leadership style is followed, while in the Australian culture, delegative leadership style in considered. In Chinese culture, leaders follow autocratic style for managing the business in their organization. Bader (2015) also portrays that subordinates are not allowed to interpret even if they found the destined rules to be ineffective. This is the major reason; Chinese leader faces difficulty in talent management in their organization, poor organizational climate and open innovation (Holbig 2013). As leaders have the tendency to direct their subordinates, finding talent according to their requirement is a huge issue for Chinese organization. These leaders rarely consider the changing technology and devoting a significant amount of time to raising capital rather that investing in talent management (Wang et al. 2012). Bader (2015) also highlights that tendency towards self-criticism is found in Chinese management trait. They provide rationales for decisions that denote a directive leadership style and on the other hand, they also communicate a sense of caring for their people that represen t the affiliative leadership style (Holbig 2013). However, they do not follow a participative leadership style. In Australia, the leaders also encourage their working personnel to take a business decision. Craft (2013) depicts that in order to accomplish this strategy, Australian leaders also initiates rewarding their employees for providing the best decision for the organization. According to the delegative leadership style factors like idealized attributes and behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception are considered in Australian Business (Holbig 2013). Moreover, these leaders emphasis on the supportiveness, social responsibility, competitiveness, emphasis on rewards, stability, performance orientation and innovation for encouraging the employee to participate in decision making processes (Wang et al. 2012). Craft (2013) furthermore depicts that Australian culture also emphasizes more on the diversity in the organization by recruiting people belonging from d ifferent culture so that they can get relevant ideas of other culture and implement in their working procedure so that every employee can sense equality; however, this aspect is not considered in the Chinese culture. Image 2: Mean scores of encouraging factors for employees in Australian culture (Source: Holbig 2013) Effect of culture on superior-subordinate relationships It is observed that culture in Australia always leaves a scope for one to become inspired. Compared to other cities, Australians have been observed to be putting more effort in the work to achieve the individual goals. Wiewiora et al. (2013) depict that Australians are very straightforward when it comes to business; thus, they do not need to form a relationship for a long time before doing the business with the parties. They could be receptive to new ideas. Additionally, it is also learnt that Australians exemplify modesty as much as they appreciate it. The people in Australia even could downplay the role of their own success; thereby, it is advisable not to jump into the conclusions straight away (Chhokar, Brodbeck and House 2013). For example, if an individual finds himself challenged to a controversial discussion during a business meeting, there is nothing to worry, as it would not be personal. They could find the debates entertaining as well as initiate them by making provocative statements or responding with humor. As the discussed earlier, people run after the achievement; thus, they believe in hard work and patience. For example, if an individual truthfully responds that has a lot on or he is finding it hard to deal with the workload. The people might think the individual is no capable or they could distance themselves. This example makes it evident that people in Australia tend to take the hurdle to achieve something bigger instead of the finding the alternatives. So, Australian values and intends to find such enthusiastic p eoples and relies on them when it comes to achieve the goals. It becomes easy for a manager of the organization to achieve bigger organizational goals when they have such enthusiastic people (Jones, Burke and Westman 2013). On the contrary, the culture is a big factor in China; it seems clear that in order to avoid striking out in China, Western organizations would be wise to hire the local skilled people (Holbig 2013). However, in order to attract the right talent, the companies must have to understand the how prospective Chinese employees tend to link to a domestic employer as well as their particular position (Kankaanranta and Lu 2013). It is observed that generalizations regarding vast, as well as dynamic countries could be at stake. For this particular thing, Chinese organizations differ based on whether they are state-owned, private firm or entirely private and autonomous. There is a considerable area of the communality, in Chinese approaches to culture. In addition to this, while Western organizations to prioritise fixed roles, strong branding, as well as detailed planning as well as the targets, the companies in China, are often less perspective as well as more adaptive. There is a different attitude towards the employment could arise from this culture. The major focus on people in Chinese employment is often at odds with the Western assumptions that work and personal life often remain as the difficult spheres that may not overlap (Witt and Redding 2013). In Chinese organisations, the managers typically know a lot of regarding the personal lives of the team members. Moreover, in the Western organization, one does not intrude himself on the private life of the team members, whereas, Chinese managers would know what is happening when it comes to his/her team members. Thus, for the purpose of teamwork and enhancement, the managers form an effective relationship with the team members to keep the balance between work and personal life. Effect of culture on managing teams Holbig (2013)portrays that when it comes to teamwork, like every Western country, the Australia first focuses on developing the diverse workplace. The diverse workplace often makes it easy to implement the desired communication for resolving any particular issue. As Australians are preferred work and achievement, they maintain certain principles. For personal and organisational objectives, people love to take work challenges. As put forward by Chaboyer et al. (2013), culture patterns at work could reflect the culture patter in wider society. Hence, the project managers tend to share the cultures of their society and their organizations with the project teams. For example, the project management techniques, as well as their training packages, have been enhanced almost exclusively in Australia. Moreover, the manager has the skill to communicate the "bad news" and manage the team performance. Although, the organizations in Australia prefer the employees based on their performance and skills, which are the benchmark for corporate success, there is always an effective relationship between the managers existing in each team (Holbig 2013). In order to build a friendly relationship with the employees, the managers use the colloquial words at the workplace in a humorous way. A diverse Australian workplace team usually operates to the homogenous team in with the communication style, the mix of mental models and values sets and a tendency towards the in the group and the out group behaviour as well as social categorization. As stated by Liu and Woywode (2013), all categorization all affect the way diverse team develop as well as functions. Thus, it can be mentioned that with the help of diverse workplace culture, open communication style and enthusiasm make it easy for the managers to manage and their performance. On the contrary, when it comes to managing the team, Chinese organizations and their leaders have become more close to their employees. The leaders rely on the open management style, where the employees come and discuss their issues with the senior managers. Likewise, the managers show the vested interest towards the personal lives of employees. Thus, the manager and the employee relationship are maintained as well as developed for the purpose of both organizational (Chaboyer et al. 2013). When it comes to managing team, the culture sensitivity calls for the ability and the skills of the managers to realise the viewpoint of those living in very different cultures as well as readiness to put them self in another individual' perspective. In addition to this, the foreign employee as the manager of the firm in China could benefit from understanding the nature, dimension as well as the variables of the particular culture. Conclusion There are nations of several cultural and traditional values across the world and every nation utilizes their cultural norm in making business in their state. It is also evident that every nation possesses some positive traits in their cultural values and that should be utilised for the betterment of their business. Two of these cultures that are considered in this business report are Australia and China. It is concluded from the Geert Hofstede model that Chinese culture follows a feminine culture, where caring for the quality of life of employees irrespective of their talent and experience is considered by the leaders. While on the other hand, in Australian culture, working ability of the personnel and talent for success and achievement are valued more and that represent a masculine culture. In addition to that long-orientation cultural values are followed in Chinese culture that is they prefers to hold their tradition for accomplishing their business proceedings; while Australian l eaders adopt modern technology and align their business working approach according to that. Moreover, Chinese culture emphasis on formulating their technology that they can use it in future also, which is a positive factor compared to the Australian, where they have to change their working process according to the changing technology. In addition to that, it is also concluded that in managing the business, leadership style also plays a crucial role. Chinese culture follows autocratic leadership style; whereas, in Australian culture, leader follows deligative or participative leadership style. The major difference between these two leadership styles is that in the former case, the managing authorities do not allow their subordinates to take participation in decision-making procedures; while in the latter case, low designation managing authorities and working personnel participate collaboratively to take effective decision for the business. References Almond, G.A. and Verba, S., 2015.The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press. Bader, J., 2015. China, autocratic patron? An empirical investigation of China as a factor in autocratic survival.International Studies Quarterly,59(1), pp.23-33. Bian, Q. and Forsythe, S., 2012. Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural comparison.Journal of Business Research,65(10), pp.1443-1451. Cavusgil, S.T., Knight, G., Riesenberger, J.R., Rammal, H.G. and Rose, E.L., 2014.International business. Pearson Australia. Chaboyer, W., Chamberlain, D., Hewson-Conroy, K., Grealy, B., Elderkin, T., Brittin, M., McCutcheon, C., Longbottom, P. and Thalib, L., 2013. CNE article: safety culture in Australian intensive care units: establishing a baseline for quality improvement.American Journal of Critical Care,22(2), pp.93-102. Chanlat, J.F., Davel, E. and Dupuis, J.P., 2013.Cross-cultural management: culture and management across the world. Routledge. Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C. and House, R.J. eds., 2013.Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Routledge. Coenen, F.H.J.M., Huitema, D. and O'Toole Jr, L.J. eds., 2012.Participation and the quality of environmental decision making(Vol. 14). Springer Science Business Media. Craft, J.L., 2013. A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 20042011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), pp.221-259. Ferrell, O.C. and Fraedrich, J., 2015.Business ethics: Ethical decision making cases. Nelson Education. Ford, R.C. and Richardson, W.D., 2013. Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. InCitation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics(pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. Geert-hofstede.com., 2017.Australia-China - Geert Hofstede. [online] Available at: https://geert-hofstede.com/australia.html [Accessed 3 Feb. 2017]. Holbig, H., 2013. Ideology after the end of ideology. China and the quest for autocratic legitimation.Democratization,20(1), pp.61-81. Jones, F., Burke, R.J. and Westman, M., 2013.Work-life balance: A psychological perspective. Psychology Press. Kankaanranta, A. and Lu, W., 2013. The evolution of English as the business lingua franca: Signs of convergence in Chinese and Finnish professional communication.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,27(3), pp.288-307. Kawar, T.I., 2012. Cross-cultural differences in management.International Journal of Business and Social Science,3(6). Lin, F., Fernndez-Serrano, J. and Romero, I., 2013. Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship: The mediating effect of culture.reviSta de economa mundial,33. Liu, Y. and Woywode, M., 2013. Light?Touch Integration of Chinese Cross?Border MA: The In?uences of Culture and Absorptive Capacity.Thunderbird International Business Review,55(4), pp.469-483. Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2012. Hofstedes fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,43(1), pp.3-14. Minkov, M., Blagoev, V. and Hofstede, G., 2013. The boundaries of culture: do questions about societal norms reveal cultural differences?.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,44(7), pp.1094-1106. Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R. and Moran, S.V., 2014.Managing cultural differences. Routledge. Popovic, A., Hackney, R., Coelho, P.S. and Jakli?, J., 2012. Towards business intelligence systems success: Effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making.Decision Support Systems,54(1), pp.729-739. Sultana, M., Rashid, M., Mohiuddin, M. and Mazumder, M.N.H., 2013. Cross-cultural management and organizational performance: A content analysis perspective. Taylor, M.Z. and Wilson, S., 2012. Does culture still matter?: The effects of individualism on national innovation rates.Journal of Business Venturing,27(2), pp.234-247. Thomas, D.C. and Peterson, M.F., 2014.Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts. Sage Publications. Thompson, J.B., 2013.Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. John Wiley Sons. Wang, C.L., Tee, D.D. and Ahmed, P.K., 2012. Entrepreneurial leadership and context in Chinese firms: a tale of two Chinese private enterprises.Asia Pacific Business Review,18(4), pp.505-530. Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. and Coffey, V., 2013. Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context.International Journal of Project Management,31(8), pp.1163-1174. Witt, M.A. and Redding, G., 2013. Asian business systems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory.Socio-Economic Review,11(2), pp.2