Introduction to Cross-cultural Management
Cross-cultural management can be defined as the management of the work teams that take into account the differences in the preferences, practices and cultures of the consumers both in the international and the global business. Different types of businesses need to adapt and modify their approaches so that they can accommodate the various changes occurring globally and which is more common in the business and other situations. The international business dealing even though goes back 100 years but the intercultural interactions have gained importance to a large extent with the advent of the newer technologies. The wireless technology not only has shined the world but also has helped in making faster interactions across the seas (Bird and Mendenhall 2016). Even travel has become easier and faster thus facilitating a large number of people to interact with each other in the different cultural contexts. Many professionals that are not an active part of a business also take into account the cross-cultural management in their curricula and training. For example, the academics working in diverse cultural conditions abroad or at home should have the good communication skills which help to maintain respectful environment and avoid misunderstanding in the workplace. Thus, communication holds an important part in every profession and thus learning to properly communicate in every cultural context and every situation has become essential. The culture of Australia is a western culture and it is derived basically from Britain while the culture is also deeply influenced by the geography of the continent. The diversified people including Oceania, Torres Strait Islander and the Aboriginals people have influenced the culture of Australia to a great extent (Carter 2013). Due to this reason, Australia is considered one of the oldest cultures in the world and this has been possible only due to the Australian Aboriginal and the Torres Strait Islander. While the present day Chinese culture is a perfect mix of both the western lifestyle and the old world tradition. Acknowledging people according to their seniority and making introductions during the conversations, keeping a check on the flow of the conversation are some of the cultural jargon of China (Kleinman and Lin 2013). This study will be based on the comparison of the Chinese and Australian Culture through the Hofstede model (Hofstede 2014; Hofstede 2013).
Hofstede model- By the end of the year 1970, Psychologist Dr Greet Hofstede published the cultural dimension model. This model, later on, became the basis and the standard for understanding the cultural differences. As per to Hofstede, Culture is the collective mindset that differentiates an individual from one group to another group. The research conducted by him and others led to the formulation of six cultural dimensions. There are six dimensions in the national culture and these dimensions designate the independent preferences of one country over the other (De Mooij 2013). The scores are relative and within it the humans are unique and thus culture can only be used meaningfully for comparison. The six cultural dimensions are power distance index, indulgence versus restraint, short-term versus the long-term direction, Uncertainty avoidance index, Masculinity versus Femininity, collectivism versus individualism (Helmreich and Merritt 2017; Hofstede 2014; Hofstede 2013). The figure 1 below shows the Hofstede comparison between Australia and China.
Culture of Australia
Figure 1: Hofstede comparison between Australia and China [source: hofstede-insights.com, 2018]
Power distance index (PDI) (Hofstede 2013)-
|
PDI |
Characteristic |
Tips |
|
Low PDI |
The nature of the organization will be flat, employees and the supervisors are considered almost equally. |
There is a big chance of delegation as much as possible; involves all the individuals in the process of making decisions which affects the decision directly. |
|
High PDI |
The organizations are centralized; the hierarchies are complex; larger gaps exist between authority, compensation and respect. |
One might need to go to the top officials for answers; acknowledge the status of a leader. |
Individualism versus collectivism (IDV) (Triandis2018)
|
IDV |
Characteristics |
Tips |
|
Low IDV |
Emphasis is placed on to mastering something, and building skills; people work to gain intrinsic rewards; the members of a group often ignores moral issues in order to maintain harmony in a group. |
Wisdom is considered to be important; suppressing emotions and feelings that might endanger harmony; the negative feeling is not given in public; Unless intended to be polite, saying no can cause loss of face. |
|
High IDV |
Respect for privacy; people love challenges and the hard-working individuals are rewarded; people value time and freedom, privacy is highly placed. |
Expression of one’s own ideas are encouraged; work and social life are not mixed; acknowledges the individual; accomplishments. |
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) (Obeidat et al. 2012)
|
MAS |
Characteristics |
Tips |
|
Low MAS |
More emphasis on the quality of life; the relationship can be consensual or oriented. |
Work-life balance and work-life flexibility both in the organizational environment and job design; here is achieved through collaboration, negotiation and input from all other levels. |
|
High MAS |
Achievement and money are equally important; the presence of strong egos along with the feelings of importance and pride. |
The existence of differentiated gender roles; long working hours is a norm and it has its risks and opportunities; people achieve the precise targets either as individuals or as groups. |
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) (Taras, Steel and Kirkman 2012)
|
UAI |
Characteristics |
Tips |
|
Low UAI |
Less sense of urgency; inclination towards open decision-making and open-ended learning; openness to innovate and change and it is generally inclusive. |
People remain focused when there is less number of structures; titles are considered to be of less importance and respect is given to those who have the capability to cope under all the circumstances. |
|
High UAI |
Presence of societal conventions; a flexible attitude is required in the care of a failure; when necessary people express their anger and other emotions; the society gives a high energy feeling with the people in it feel that they are in control of their life. |
Vigorous hand gestures, anger and emotion are the basic part of the conversation; there may be cultural expectations and unspoken rules that one must learn; one must be clear about the goals and the expectations, creative thinking is encouraged. |
Pragmatic versus Normative (PRA) (Hoque and Bao 2015)
|
PRA |
Characteristics |
Tips |
|
Normative |
Rights and values are emphasized; string convictions; people are curious to know why; people have a tendency to oversell themselves. |
People sell themselves so that they are taken seriously; flattery empowers; people are not ready to compromise as this will be considered a weakness. |
|
Pragmatic |
Obligations and values are emphasized; modesty; education and thrift are considered as positive values; people often wonder how they can know the truth. |
People behave in a modest way; people avoid talking too much of themselves; people although are eager to compromise, however, it remains unclear to the outsiders. |
Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) (Beugelsdijk, Maseland and Van Hoorn 2015)
|
IVR |
Characteristics |
Tips |
|
High Restraint |
Rigid and controlled behaviour; pessimistic. |
During the informal meeting, one expresses negativity of the world; people avoid engaging in jokes when informal sessions and try to be professional. |
|
High indulgence |
Focus on the personal happiness, optimistic; freedom of speech is given importance. |
Life is not taken seriously; dialogue and debates are encouraged during the decision and meetings; prioritize mentoring, coaching and feedback; emphasis is put on the having a balance between work-life balance. |
The culture of Australia: According to the six dimensions in the Hofstede model, the Australian culture will be analysed based on such dimensions (Hofstede 2014; Hofstede 2013).
Power Distance- this dimensional aspect points out the inequality between individuals in the society showing inequalities within the attitudes of the culture. Power distance can be understood as the degree to which the representatives and affiliates of the organizations or institutions in a nation to accept and expect an unequal power distribution. It is highlighted that the inequality in the society is supported both by the followers as well as the leaders (Matusitz and Musambira 2013). The score for Australia is pretty low in this dimension and it is 36. Within the Australian organizations, for the purpose of convenience, the hierarchy is established and for this reason, the superiors are always found to be accessible. The managers also on the other hand depend heavily on their teams and the employee for their competencies. Sharing of information occurs frequently between the employees and the management. Both the staff and the management are expected to be consulted. This type of communication is known as participative, direct and informal (Chand, Cummings and Patel 2012).
Individualism- The fundamental issues which are emphasized in this aspect is the extent to which the society’s members are interdependent on each other. This section deals with the fact whether the self-image of a person is defined either by “we” or “I”. In an individualist society, and the individual only needs to take care of their families and themselves, in contrast to a collectivist society where people live in group, taking care of each other in for loyalty (Triandis 2017). In this particular dimension, the score for Australia is 90, and thus it can be considered to be a culture of individualism. This implies that the society is loosely bound and in such a situation people takes care of themselves and their immediate family members. In the world of business, self reliance and imitativeness is expected from the employees. Even in the world of work based on exchanges, promotion decisions, recruitment and work are all dependant on the merit and it depends on the evidence on what one can do and has done (Turner 2014).
Masculinity- A higher score in this aspect reveals that the society will be fostered by success, accomplishments and competition. Accomplishments here are denoted by phrases like “best performer” and “winner”. This system of values initiates at the level of schools and is maintained through their life both in the leisure points and work. A low score in this aspect implies feminine and the dominant values in a society being quality of life and caring others. A feminine society can be described as one where standing out from the crown is a not admirable, and quality of life can be considered as a sign of success. The most basic issues are that what motivates people and whether they want to be best (depicts masculinity) and liking what others do (depicting feminine nature) (Hofstede, Jonker and Verwaart 2012). Australia’s in this dimension is 61 that are considered as a masculine society. The behaviour of an individual in play, school and work have one shared value and this says that the winners take all, and an individual must strive to be the best as they can be. Thus, Australians are considered to be proud of their achievements in life and success in life and this offer a basis making promotional decisions, and decisions to hire. The conflict resolution occurs at the individual levels and the main objective is to win (Hu, Chand and Evans 2013).
Culture of China
Uncertainty avoidance- the dimension of uncertainty avoidance explains how society deals with uncertainties of the future, which can never be identified beforehand. Thus, the question arises, should an individual attempt to control the future or just let events take its own course. This is a major confusion and it carries with itself anxiety and the diverse cultures have understood to cope up with the stress. This dimension gives a measure of the level to which the members will feel intimidated by the unknown and ambiguous situations. The Score will also reflect the creation of the institutions and the beliefs that are created in order to avoid the anxiety (Schmitz and Weber 2014). Australia here scored a very intermediate score of 51 in this dimension.
Long-term orientation- this aspect describes how the present society is able to maintain links to the past while dealing with present or future challenges. Every society prioritises these two goals of existentialism very differently. It has been found that normative societies are the ones that low scores in this dimension prefer to maintain time bound decisions and at the same time honouring the societal dimension with a suspicion. Higher levels of score signify that the societies will take a pragmatic approach. The society with a higher score will encourage the attempts as well as the thrifts in the modern education in a way to be prepared for the future (Venaik, Zhu and Brewer 2013). Australia has scored 21 in this dimension and therefore can be considered to be a normative culture. The individuals that belong to such a society exhibit a strong concern and at the same time establish the absolute truth. The people in this society have a great level of respect for their traditions and exhibit fewer propensities in order to save their future and achieve quick results (Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013).
Indulgence- one of the biggest challenges that are being faced by humanity is the extent and the extent up to which socialization occurs among small children. It is an established fact that without socializations a human can be called a human. Indulgence can be described as the degree and the extent individuals try to control their impulses and desires and this is based entirely on the way of upbringing of the individuals. A comparatively weak control is known as an indulgence while a relatively strong control will be known as restraint. Thus, depending on this fact, cultures are described as restrained and indulgent (Bergiel, Bergiel and Upson 2012). In this dimension, Australia has scored 71 which show that Australia has an indulgent society. People in societies with a high indulgence score have an enthusiasm to realise their desires as well as impulses with regard to enjoyments and having fun. The people in a society exhibit a positive attitude and are optimistic. Additionally, individuals consider leisure time as an important and accordingly they spent money on what they wish for and act the way that pleases them (Sohaib and Kang 2014).
The culture of China: According to the six dimensions in the Hofstede model, the Chinese culture will be analysed based on such dimensions (Hofstede 2014; Hofstede 2013).
Hofstede Model
Individualism- China scored 80 and it sits at the high rankings of power distance. This society where people feel that inequality amongst people is acceptable. The superior-subordinate relationship is polarized and there is no defence mechanism against the superiors that abuse power. The individuals are influenced by the sanctions and formal authority and are therefore optimistic about the abilities of the people for initiative and leadership. The people also do not have aspirations beyond their rank (Chand, Cummings and Patel 2012).
Masculinity- China scored 66 in this dimension and thus China can be considered to be a success driven and a success-oriented country. It has been found that the Chinese people will sacrifice their leisure time and the families for work. The people that work in the service sector will provide the service till late at night. For the Chinese people, leisure time is unimportant. The farmers will leave their families to acquire better paying jobs in the cities. The Chinese students show caution about their rankings and scores since this is the main criteria to measure their success (Fu et al. 2013).
Uncertainty avoidance- China scored low on uncertainty avoidance. In the immediate social circles, there is an interest for truth and there are necessary laws as well. Nonetheless there is loyalty to the rules and laws and this may be malleable to suit their situations and the pragmatism is considered to be a part of life. The Chinese people are unperturbed and at ease with ambiguity and even their language are full of the ambiguities that are challenging for the western people to follow. Whereas, the Chinese are entrepreneurial and adaptable. It has been found that the majority of the Chinese business was having a family owned business that was both small and medium-sized (Matusitz and Musambira 2013).
Long-term orientation- China scored 87, in this aspect and this shows that China has a pragmatic culture. A belief is held by the people that truth is dependent on the time, context and situation. They show adaptability to changed conditions with a strong propensity towards the achieving results, perseverance, thriftiness, investment and saving (Kwon 2012).
Indulgence- With a low score, China is found to be having a restrained society. Societies with a low score of ten to exhibit pessimism and cynicism. The individuals belonging to restrained society can control desires. People that have such an orientation are restricted by the social structures and beliefs, feeling that they are indulging in something that is wrong (Guang 2013).
Thus from the above study, it can be concluded that Culture is a collective mindset which differentiates an individual from one group to another. According to the Hofstede model, there are six cultural dimensions: power distance index, indulgence versus restraint, short-term orientation versus the long-term orientation, Uncertainty avoidance index, Masculinity versus Femininity, collectivism versus individualism. A comparison has been made between the China and Australia based on the six dimensions of Hofstede and only the dimension of Masculinity showed almost similar kinds of scores. Both the countries showed great dedication towards their work and they can go to any extent to achieve success in life.
Hofstede Comparison between China and Australia
Reference
Bergiel, E.B., Bergiel, B.J. and Upson, J.W., 2012. Revisiting Hofstede’s dimensions: examining the cultural convergence of the United States and Japan. American Journal of Management, 12(1), pp.69-79.
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. and Van Hoorn, A., 2015. Are Scores on H ofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), pp.223-240.
Bird, A. and Mendenhall, M.E., 2016. From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1), pp.115-126.
Carter, D., 2013. Always almost modern: Australian print cultures and modernity. Australian Scholarly Publishing.
Chand, P., Cummings, L. and Patel, C., 2012. The effect of accounting education and national culture on accounting judgments: A comparative study of Anglo-Celtic and Chinese culture. European accounting review, 21(1), pp.153-182.
De Mooij, M., 2013. On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3), pp.253-261.
Fu, P.P., Wu, R., Yang, Y. and Ye, J., 2013. Chinese culture and leadership. In Culture and Leadership Across the World (pp. 911-942). Routledge.
Guang, X., 2013. Buddhist impact on Chinese culture. Asian Philosophy, 23(4), pp.305-322.
Helmreich, R.L. and Merritt, A.C., 2017. Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Routledge.
Hofstede, G., 2013. Hierarchical power distance in forty countries. In Organizations Alike and Unlike (RLE: Organizations) (pp. 115-138). Routledge.
Hofstede, G., 2014. The Hofstede Model in Context: quantity characteristics cultures. Yazyk, kommunikatsiya i sotsial’naya sreda= Language, Communication and Social Environment, 12, pp.9-49.
Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M. and Verwaart, T., 2012. Cultural differentiation of negotiating agents. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(1), pp.79-98.
hofstede-insights.com, 2018. Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights. [online] Hofstede Insights. Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,china/ [Accessed 22 Aug. 2018].
Hoque, M.R. and Bao, Y., 2015. Cultural influence on adoption and use of e-Health: evidence in Bangladesh. Telemedicine and e-Health, 21(10), pp.845-851.
Hu, C., Chand, P. and Evans, E., 2013. The effect of national culture, acculturation, and education on accounting judgments: A comparative study of Australian and Chinese culture. Journal of International Accounting Research, 12(2), pp.51-77.
Kleinman, A. and Lin, T.Y. eds., 2013. Normal and abnormal behaviour in Chinese culture (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.
Kwon, J.W., 2012. Does China have more than one culture?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(1), pp.79-102.
Lee, S.G., Trimi, S. and Kim, C., 2013. The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption. Journal of World Business, 48(1), pp.20-29.
Matusitz, J. and Musambira, G., 2013. Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and technology: analyzing Hofstede’s dimensions and human development indicators. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 31(1), pp.42-60.
Obeidat, B.Y., Shannak, R.O., Masa’deh, R.E.M.D.T. and Al-Jarrah, I., 2012. Toward better understanding for Arabian culture: Implications based on Hofstede’s cultural model. European Journal of Social Sciences, 28(4), pp.512-522.
Schmitz, L. and Weber, W., 2014. Are hofstede’s dimensions valid? a test for measurement invariance of uncertainty avoidance. interculture journal: Online-Zeitschrift für interkulturelle Studien, 13(22), pp.11-26.
Sohaib, O. and Kang, K., 2014. Cultural Aspects of Business?to?Consumer (B2C) E?commerce: Acomparative Analysis of Pakistan and Australia. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 61(1), pp.1-18.
Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B.L., 2012. Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), pp.329-341.
Triandis, H.C., 2017. Generic individualism and collectivism. The Blackwell handbook of cross?cultural management, pp.16-45.
Triandis, H.C., 2018. Individualism and collectivism. Routledge.
Turner, B.S., 2014. Australia: the debate about hegemonic culture. Dominant Ideologies (RLE Social Theory), p.158.
Venaik, S., Zhu, Y. and Brewer, P., 2013. Looking into the future: Hofstede long term orientation versus GLOBE future orientation. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(3), pp.361-385.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
