Cultural Differences in Business
Managing cultures fundamentally involves the competence to recognize and embrace similarities and divergences among nations and cultures. Culture being a dominant pattern of living, thinking and believing is essentially developed and transmitted by people, consciously or unconsciously to subsequent generations (Gurung and Prater 2017). Thus the ability to manage as well as leverage cultural divergences serves contributory role in attaining great performance. Baylis, Smith and Owens (2017) have claimed that understanding the impact of globalization is essential while managing cultures in business is imperative for organizations emphasizing on creating a competitive advantage position in the global market. However However, according to Gurung and Prater (2017), high level of efficiency, successful collaborations with advanced innovation rely greatly on culturally adaptable managers. According to Bauer, Matzler and Wolf (2016), communication plays a vital role for businesses to efficiently justify processes through which products and services vary from their counterparts. Globalization and digitization in business environment have been consequential to the growth in the incidence, hastiness as well as a series of competing businesses. According to Stewart et al. (2017), competition in the global business domain has required increased market investigation in order to facilitate companies to remain relevant in their target market. The following report evaluates cultural differences between US and Russians in business domain and further manages cultural and divergences.
Communication in negotiations is the process by which negotiations can attain objectives and further build associations as well as resolve disputes. According to Ahern, Daminelli and Fracassi (2015), majority of negotiators consider communication as the key to drive any attainable negotiations or disputes. Furthermore, communication tends to acquire more value when negotiations involve counterparts belonging from different cultures. While negotiating with foreign distributors, managers tend to confront a range of impediments such as unfamiliar laws, standards, values and governments which typically remain absent from negotiations especially with U.S suppliers (Kumar 2014). Furthermore, one particular hindrance which tends to complicate global negotiations is cultural divergences between two parties. As culture consists of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, attitudes, values and ideologies realizing cultural patterns of counterparts belonging to culturally different communities is highly essential. For instance, business negotiations in Russia focus greatly on communication in comparison to American counterparts who have the tendency to handle communication in documented forms (Deresky 2017). Furthermore, as per the opinion of author, during negotiations, US managers exhibit a propensity to acknowledge cooperation and concession which is regarded to be more desirable as well as certain. However, Stewart et al. (2017) on the other hand has stated that Russians show lesser degree of likeness on body language in relation to American entrepreneurs especially during negotiation purposes with competitors where unnecessary and extreme gesticulations are likely to perplex American managers who emphasize greatly on body language. Meanwhile, Chow (2015) is of the perspective that
Furthermore, in regards to Russian corporate hierarchy author has observed significant differences in relation to the cultural patterns represented in the United States. At this juncture, Schwartz (2014) has noted that major proportions of Russian businesses are led by single and autocratic authority play decisive roles in decision making processes. However, business culture in the United States encourage lower-ranked employees to pose queries concerning their duties assigned to them and further work in partnerships with workplace peers and supervisors.
Language Differences
Language Differences
Vangen. and Winchester (2014) have witnessed a strong determination in order to preserve their unique languages as well as cultures regardless of its 70 years of Soviet endeavors to force Russian language and culture on individuals under their regulation. The incidence of the war in Chechnya can be sited as an example. Furthermore, Americans find it highly complex to realize the intricacies of the Soviet nationality issues and their political significance. This is primarily because America’s immigrants largely assimilated into the American cultural patterns. According to author, Russian language being a Slavic one and easier to adopt American managers will not face severity while communicating with Russian competitors. Americans can further take advantages of the recent national discussions on issues related to the Americanization of the Russian language. Furthermore, Degens et al. (2017) have indicated certain implications which have the propensity to arise whereby in English one word may be adequate to convey an idea. While Russian language comprises several words to effortlessly choose from each with to some extent diverse shade of interpretations. However, Bauer, Matzler and Wolf (2016) are of the perspective that Russians are not habitual in operating business over the phone which might create business complexities while dealing with Russian business rivals.
At this juncture, Kumar (2014) has drawn significance of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimension to understand cultural dimensions which American and Russian managers and leaders implement in any business negotiations. According to Hofstede, national cultures have great value and significance on work values. Hofstede has further observed that employees and managers tend to vary in accordance to five dimensions of national culture namely power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity and long-term versus short-term orientation (Chow 2015).
- Power distance- With a score of around 93 in the power distance dimension, Russia can be represented as a nation in which determinants of power holders tend to be highly distant in society. These aspects however as per Bauer, Matzler and Wolf (2016), can be emphasized by fact that Russia being a largest country in the world is immensely centralized whereby around 80% of the country’s fiscal potential is greatly concentrated. Furthermore, with significant rate of discrepancies between less as well as the decisive people leads to greater degree of importance of status symbols. Thus, America with power distance score of 40 must consider these determinants while dealing any challenging forms of business negotiations and further apply strategies accordingly to attain benefits from the market by surpassing their Russian business rivals (Deresky 2017).
- Individualism versus Collectivism- Within the American business domain, hierarchy is fundamentally established for expediency which encourages superiors to be accessible and managers to depend greatly on individual employees, managers and teams for their expertise. Thus American managers while dealing with business negotiations expect to be consulted and support proper knowledge sharing (Trevino and Nelson 2016). At this juncture, American managers must underline their lack of ability to set-up deep association with employees or rivals. Meanwhile, Vangen. and Winchester (2014) is of the perspective that Russian business men while making any business dealings necessitate to be personal, genuine and reliable before focusing on any tasks and prefer to be responsive towards their recipients instead of encouraging implicit communication style. Furthermore, as Americans exhibit utmost adaptability in executing any forms of business operations or strategies with people they are have no awareness (Gurung and Prater 2017). As a result, American managers do not withdraw while approaching their business counterparts to acquire or seek information about business strategies.
- Uncertainty avoidance- The high score of over 95 in uncertainty avoidance dimension has revealed that Russians feel highly threatened by uncertain business situations and have thus established as one of the most multifaceted bureaucracies in the world. Furthermore, presentation is either not arranged for example when negotiations are being developed and the focus is on relationship building or highly comprehensive and well-prepared (Wilson 2017). However, in the uncertainty avoidance dimension as per Hofstede’s model of cultural measurement, the United States has scored a below average score of around 45 whereby in such perceived context American managers dealing any business agreements with their counterparts will leverage their behaviour more than if the cultural patterns would either have been on the higher or lower scale (Saleem and Larimo 2017).
`Furthermore, cultural patterns in the United States exhibit relative degree of reception towards new ideas whether it deals with business practices or technology. Thus while expressing ideas in any business negotiations, American managers are likely to show greater degree of tolerance of opinions, knowledge and ideas from their business competitors and encourage freedom of expression. Furthermore, Degens et al. (2017) have denoted that American managers do not necessitate a lot of roles and are less emotionally communicative in comparison to high-scoring cultures.
- Masculinity versus Femininity- America’s score of Masculinity (62) is estimated to be high and can be observed in typical patterns of America’s behavioural patterns. The parameters of this dimension can further be explained by the combination of a high masculinity drive in amalgamation to most of the individuals drive in the world (Baylis, Smith and Owens 2017). Meanwhile, a considerably low score of Russia may be seen as unanticipated in relation to its likeness for status symbols. However, these factors are predominant in Russia related to high power distance. Furthermore, at the second glance, Ford et al. (2015) have noticed that managers inheriting Russian cultures, values and norms tend to understate their individualistic success, contributions or competencies. However, such aspects might play negatively for Russian counterparts negotiating with American entrepreneurs as the former might lose valuable insights by subjugating their previous achievements. Drawing significance from these areas of differences, Chow (2015) has observed the way Americans on the other hand prefers to promote their achievements in professional life. Such cultural patterns have led several American assessment systems to be based on accurate setting whereby individuals belonging to American cultural background can reveal how successfully they have performed their task. In addition to this, there exists a ‘can-do’ perspective which creates significant dynamism in their business practices as it has been perceived that there is always high level of feasibility to perform things in improved manner (Ford et al. 2015). Consequentially, there can be witnessed a considerable degree of polarisation along with court cases which however in recent times have been supporting the American premise of ‘liberty and justice for all.’ Thus the elevating rate of inequality tends to endanger notions of democracy due to the widening gap among classes which may push dimensions of power distance up and individualism down (Schwartz 2014).
- Long-term versus short-term orientation-In this dimension, America shows an average score on the fifth dimension by attaining a low score of around 26. These factors however can be reflected by underlining ways in which Americans managers show inclination in analysing recent ideas and information to evaluate its level of authenticity. As a result, culture fails to develop majority of the Americans pragmatic (Saleem and Larimo 2017). However, these aspects must not be mixed with the idea that American managers exhibit utmost rationality being signified by the ‘can-do’ perspective. Furthermore, factors related to polarization are reinforced by the fact that several American managers constitute strong ideas about what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (Wilson 2017). This ability of proficiently distinguishing between positive and negative factors will enable the American manager to plan competitive business strategies against their Russian business competitor who on the other hand reveal a competence to acclimatize traditions and norms easily towards changed business contexts with a strong propensity to save as well as invest in attaining results.
Negotiations across diverse cultures tend to generate worse outcomes as cultures are primarily characterized by different behaviours, communication styles and norms. As negotiating with diverse cultures bring various perspectives to the bargaining table, it might lead to potential miscommunication. However, in order overcome such tendencies, American manager must attain knowledge about the cultural patterns of Russian business rival. However, gathering of ideas must not only be based on investing on customs and behaviours of diverse cultures also further by comprehending why individuals pursue certain customs and demonstrate behaviours in the first place. Furthermore, extensive research on counterparts’ prototypes can facilitate entrepreneurs’ strategies of negotiation with business rivals. However, it is important to note that cultural divergences can also serve as significant avenues to form valuable agreements.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that Russia and other western countries such as the United States are very different in relation to cultural patterns. business enterprises which are successfully competent to communicate and manage cross cultural ideas exhibit a propensity to acquire a competitive beneficial position as they can devote considerable amount of time as well as resources in executing business and less time in focusing on internal and external cultural communication issues. During negotiations in business with counterparts, American managers or business leaders exhibit greater degree of propensity to collaborate whereby Russian counterparts identify such attributes as a sign of incompetence that is a retreat from a current position. Endurance and persistence regarded as primary skills must be possessed for executing achievable business and acquire competitive advantage against their business rivals. Furthermore, organizations which involve cultural values and standards of the target market with counterparts have the propensity to grab attention of target markets. However as there are two generations within one country, thus the shifts in cultural scores in Hofstede theory can impact the negotiation process between American manager and his Russian counterpart.
References
Ahern, K.R., Daminelli, D. and Fracassi, C., 2015. Lost in translation? The effect of cultural values on mergers around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), pp.165-189.
Bauer, F., Matzler, K. and Wolf, S., 2016. M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences—A central European targets perspective. International Business Review, 25(1), pp.76-86.
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. eds., 2017. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Chow, D.C., 2015. International business transactions: problems, cases, and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Degens, N., Endrass, B., Hofstede, G.J., Beulens, A. and André, E., 2017. ‘What I see is not what you get’: why culture-specific behaviours for virtual characters should be user-tested across cultures. AI & society, 32(1), pp.37-49.
Deresky, H., 2017. International management: Managing across borders and cultures. Pearson Education India.
Ford, B.Q., Dmitrieva, J.O., Heller, D., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Grossmann, I., Tamir, M., Uchida, Y., Koopmann-Holm, B., Floerke, V.A., Uhrig, M. and Bokhan, T., 2015. Culture shapes whether the pursuit of happiness predicts higher or lower well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), p.1053.
Gurung, A. and Prater, E., 2017. A research framework for the impact of cultural differences on IT outsourcing. In Global Sourcing of Services: Strategies, Issues and Challenges (pp. 49-82).
Hofstede Insights 2018. Home – Hofstede Insights. [online] Hofstede Insights. Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2018].
Kumar, R., 2014. Managing ambiguity in strategic alliances. California Management Review, 56(4), pp.82-102.
Saleem, S. and Larimo, J., 2017. Hofstede cultural framework and advertising research: An assessment of the literature. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VII) (pp. 247-263). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Schwartz, S.H., 2014. Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 45(1), pp.5-13.
Stewart, J.S., Oliver, E.G., Cravens, K.S. and Oishi, S., 2017. Managing millennials: Embracing generational differences. Business Horizons, 60(1), pp.45-54.
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A., 2016. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons.
Vangen, S. and Winchester, N., 2014. Managing cultural diversity in collaborations: A focus on management tensions. Public Management Review, 16(5), pp.686-707.
Wilson, W., 2017. Constitutional government in the United States. Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
