CROSS CULTURAL Assignment (Claire Okafor - 10347021)
-
Upload
claire-okafor -
Category
Documents
-
view
181 -
download
0
Transcript of CROSS CULTURAL Assignment (Claire Okafor - 10347021)
Managerial Styles in different cultures
Claire OkaforStudent number: 10347021
Cross Cultural Management Assignment
Date: 13th January 2011
Tutor: Jon Stephens Word Count: 3,035
January 13, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The success of an International joint-venture can be attained if a good knowledge of the
country is known. The meeting of managers from France, Germany and Netherlands is an
interesting. Taking two models of culture (Hofstede and Trompenaars), we see France having a
close trait of individualism and uncertainty avoidance with Germany while Netherlands is quite
far from this. Other issues pointed out by Trompenaars shows differences and similarities in
these three countries, which can make decision making difficult. But with suggestion of scholars
on how these differences can be solved we realize that training mangers from respective
countries on communication, negotiation and allocation of roles, release of information to
encourage trust can be of help to minimize tension in business transactions and projects.
| Page 2
January 13, 2011
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................2
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4
2. HOFSTEDE AND TROMPENNARS CULTURAL PROFILING..................................................................5
2.1 INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM...........................................................................................5
2.1 MASCULINITY- FEMININTY...........................................................................................................5
2.2 POWER DISTANCE......................................................................................................................6
2.3 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE..........................................................................................................7
2.4 LONG AND SHORT TERM ORIENTATION......................................................................................7
3. TROMPENAARS AND TURNER..........................................................................................................8
3.1 UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM....................................................................................8
3.2 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM..........................................................................8
3.3 SPECIFIC VERSUS DIFUSSED.........................................................................................................9
3.4 ACHIEVED VERSUS ASCRIBED.....................................................................................................10
3.5 EQUALITY VERSUS HIERACHY.....................................................................................................10
3.6 INNER DIRECTED VERSUS OUTER DIRECTED ORIENTATION.......................................................11
3.7 TIME AS SEQUENCE VERSUS TIME AS SYNCHRONISATION........................................................11
4 PART B...........................................................................................................................................11
5 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................14
HOFSTEDE CULTURAL DIMENSION........................................................................................................14
MAP OF FRANCE....................................................................................................................................14
MAP OF GERMANY............................................................................................................................15
MAP OF NETHERLANDS.........................................................................................................................15
References.............................................................................................................................................16
| Page 3
January 13, 2011
1. INTRODUCTION
People in oragnisations are often influenced by different factors, but culture is a major
determinant. It influences people’s orientation, from different parts of the world (Mead, 2005).
When people from different cultures meet, there might be similarities and differences, which
can make interaction between them to be complex. Communication, decision-making, team
work and negotiation were suggested by the author, as a means to bridge the gap between the
cultural differences.
This report investigated the meeting of three managers from different cultures and countries.
These countries were Germany, France and Netherlands. Two main profiling models namely:
Hofstede and Trompenaars were explored.
(Hofstede, 1980 cited in Tayeb 2003) illustrated the four dimensions of Hofstede cultural
profiling model. These dimensions were:
Individualism and Collectivism
Masculinity-Femininity
Uncertainty avoidance
Power distance and
Long and short term orientation.
On the other hand, another cultural profiling model was suggested by Trompenaars and Turner
(Mead, 2005), which showed seven dimensions of cultures as follows:
Universalism,
Analysed- specifics,
Individualism,
Inner-directedness,
Time as a sequence,
Achieved status and
Equality.
| Page 4
January 13, 2011
2. HOFSTEDE AND TROMPENNARS CULTURAL PROFILING
2.1 INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
Hodggets and Luthans, (2000) show cases Hofstede cultural dimension as being wealth related
in nature. They emphasised that richer countries are individualistic in nature. Though Germans
and French are individualistic, Dutch are much more individualistic in nature than Germans and
French (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). These three countries have close similarities in their
managerial styles, although Germans have the lowest score of 67, followed by France 71 and
Netherlands 83 (Trompenar, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005). Managers from these countries will
tend to respects their colleagues rights and achievements, uphold their respective decisions
(this indicates that a joint decision process might be complex (Mead, 2005). The author further
emphasised that, these managers will expect loyalty and hard work from themselves as they
belief that a high reward is as a result of hard work. Also, German and French mangers will aim
varieties when making decisions But Netherland managers will aim at a wide range of varieties
rather than conformity.
2.1 MASCULINITY- FEMININTY
Countries with high masculinity tend to emphasize on making profits and are task oriented
Mead, (2005). They have high regards for individual achievements, (Hoddgets and Luthans,
2000). These countries reserve some specific occupations for men and others for women.
Managers of countries with high masculinity believe that money is the source for motivation
(Mead, 2005).
Mean while countries with high level of feminity stresses on social relationships in working
areas (Mead, 2005). He further emphasized that there are no specific occupations reserved for
women or men in countries with high level of feminity. Hodgets and Luthans, (2000) is of the
view that managers from countries with high feminity encourages individualistic decisions.
Mead, (2005) rated illustrates countries with high level of masculinity, where Germany, France
and Dutch have high level of masculinity scoring 66, 43 and 14 respectively. This shows that
there might be slight conflicts when mangers from these countries will have slight conflicts
| Page 5
January 13, 2011
when meeting as countries like Germany have a high level of masculinity than the other two.
Showing that, the French manager’s are task, target and profit oriented in nature.
Furthermore the German mangers will place the shareholders interest in high esteem as they
believe that shareholders satisfaction is paramount (Schiedner and Barsoux, 2003). Meanwhile
Netherlands believe in social relationships and tend not to regard money as a motivator. On the
other hand, French managers will have common views with Germans although they do not
have high level of masculinity as the Germans. Managers from Netherlands will not be
comfortable with German and French managers if they meet with female managers from these
countries. As Netherlands belief that certain occupations are reserved for women (Mead,
2005).
2.2 POWER DISTANCE
Tayeb, (2003) described power distance as the degree of acceptance to unequal power
distribution of members of a society. Although the distribution of power differs in countries,
there are some with high and low regard for power (Mead, 2005). Out of the three countries
France is seen with a high power distance, scoring 68, while Germany and Netherlands score 35
and 38 respectively (Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005). When mangers of these
countries meet, the French managers, having high power distance will want to dominate as
they have a high regard for hierarchy unlike Germans and Netherlands who have low regard
for hierarchy (Schneider and Barsoux , 2003). French will want decision making to be
centralised while Germans and Netherlands will want decisions to be made in a decentralized
manner as they belief that subordinates should be involved in decision making (Mead, 2005).
He further illustrates that, the French manager will expect the other mangers to be autocratic
in decision making as they believe those in managerial positions should see themselves as
munificent decision makers unlike Germans and Netherlands who admit that mangers need
support and ought to make decisions in a involuntary way. Schneider and Barsoux,(2003) sees
this as uncomfortable to the French manger as he sees the Germans and Dutch as being
bureaucratic in decision making. Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) illustrates that French mangers
| Page 6
January 13, 2011
will want a close supervision on the project as they belief that power and status are motivators
in achieving the project or organizational objectives. Unlike managers from Germany and
Netherlands who lay emphasis on formal rules and regulations as a route to achieving good
results (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Germans also stress that the working environment
should be mutually dependent unlike the French (Mead, 2005).
2.3 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) present the French and German managers as having a degree of
uncertainty avoidance. These managers tend to have a high sense of security and are unwilling
to take risk, unlike the manager from Netherlands who have a low uncertainty
avoidance .Tayeb,(2003) illustrates that the Netherlands manager see uncertainty as a room
for innovations . Mead, (2005) points out that Netherlands manager will suppress his emotions
on certain issues unlike the French and Germans. Also, French and German managers expect
excellent skills and knowledge on the project and are more willing to take responsibilities of
their actions, unlike Netherlands managers (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). With this the (French
and Germans) prefer to have a clear description of their jobs (Mead, 2005).
2.4 LONG AND SHORT TERM ORIENTATION
French and German managers are long term oriented although not at high degree. They have a
good regard for endurance and belief in having good relationships with colleagues (Mead,
2005). The author also pointed out that Dutch manager is unstable and tend to protect their
faces unlike the French and German managers who have a sense of shame. Dutch managers will
like to exchange cards during business and will appreciate gifts as a good way of starting a good
relationship. This is not so with his colleagues. Also Barsoux and Scheidner, (2003) is of the view
that Germans and French managers are critical thinkers and tend to expect profit from business
in a long period unlike the Dutch manger.
| Page 7
January 13, 2011
3. TROMPENAARS AND TURNER
3.1 UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM
Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) is of the opinion that countries with which have a high level of
universalism often observe formal rules in legal and business transactions. While countries
with high level of particularism tend not lay much emphasis on formal rules but they hold
friendship and trust for each other in high esteem. Among the three countries Germany has a
high score for universalism, followed by Netherlands and France, scoring 90, 88 and 68
respectively (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). This shows that managers from these countries have
similar traits but that does not mean that there might not be differences among them.
However, managers from these three countries have the culture characteristics of having close
adherence to business contracts and adjusting rules in contracts as the need arises. Also these
managers, hold fast to deals though a better knowledge of colleagues can influence the way
deals are implemented. Mead, (2005) shows a situation from Trompenaars demonstrating that
managers from Germany and Netherlands have the tendency of friends influencing them of not
following set rules, if this might implicate them of breaking laws. But this does not mean that
they have a high level of that trait. The author further illustrates a situation of business secrecy.
German and Netherlands managers keep business secreats even of it might implicate a
colleague but French managers have the tendency of not keeping business secreats especially
when it might implicate a friend. This can be judged from their scores of 66, 62 and 56
respectively. Mead, (2005) points up that these three countries have no rationalities for legal
cultures.
3.2 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM
Though authors like Hofstede have showed one of the cultural dimensions as individualism
versus collectivism, it is similar to Trompenaars view. Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) pointed out
some major aspects of Trompenaars view on Individualism and communitarianism which
differentiates it from Hofstede opinion.
| Page 8
January 13, 2011
People from individualistic countries consider themselves as individuals while people from
Communitarian countries consider themselves as individuals (Hodggetts and Luthans, 2000).
Managers from Germany, France and Netherlands are individualistic in nature. The authors are
of the view that managers from these countries will assume personal responsibilities carrying
out a project and assume big salaries for big responsibilities. Also, when having negotiations
representatives are expected to be highly skilled for a managerial status, they and the decisions
from negotiations are expected to be taken on the spot.
However, Mead, (2005) illustrates Trompenaars opinion saying that a manager from
Netherland will lay emphasis on individuals taking responsibilities to improve the quality of life
of other individuals not mindful of freedom hindrances. But this is not the case for managers
from France and Germany. The French manager will expect that the other managers to be more
dedicated to the project while maintaining a good relationship (Trompenaars 1997, cited in
Mead, 2005).
3.3 SPECIFIC VERSUS DIFUSSED
Countries that are specific in nature share their public spaces but tend to protect private spaces
and only share it with those having closeness with them. Mean while countries that are diffuse
in nature share their public spaces without pains (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). The authors
further illustrates that Managers from countries that are specific in nature do not have a close
relationship with their work life and private life. While managers from diffuse cultures, have a
close relationship with work and private life (managers from France, Germany and Netherlands
are diffuse in nature). These managers like to be addressed according to the role they play in
the society and status. They belief that, people and work, are not to be separated. When having
meeting the French and Netherlands will expect to go strait to the point but the German
manager might beat around the bush.
| Page 9
January 13, 2011
3.4 ACHIEVED VERSUS ASCRIBED
Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005 is of the view that ascribed are people who do not lay
emphasis on achievements while Ascribed are people who consider achievements of individuals
as a vital aspect of work .Hodgetts and Luthans pointed out that France, Germany and
Netherlands are not ascribed in nature .So if managers from these counties meet they will not
face challenges in assigning roles to themselves since they have similar traits of looking at the
achievements of their colleagues before assigning roles. Managers from these three countries
will always expect feedback from each other on how they have run their projects and what they
have achieved so far.
The author further explains that, managers from these countries will look at their abilities as
criteria to success. Also, manager from these countries regard hard work is the basis for success
as reward is based on achievements. Although France, Netherlands and Germany are similar in
this trait represents Germany and France as being highly achieved in nature than Netherlands
(Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005).
3.5 EQUALITY VERSUS HIERACHY
(Trompenaars 1997, cited in Mead, 2005) is of the view that France is hierarchical in nature but
their degree of hierarchy is not high as compared to communitarian society. The manager from
France will expect that they should be some sense of hierarchy when the project is carried out.
Unlike the manager from Netherland who sees equality as a good way of structuring an
organization or carrying out a project. On the other hand, the German manager is hierarchical
in nature but not as the French manager. The difference is that the German manager is more
social with the working environment. The German manager can easily disseminate information
about the projects unlike the French manager. Also, the manager from Netherlands will give
out information easily about the project as he beliefs every one is equal in a working
environment.
| Page 10
January 13, 2011
3.6 INNER DIRECTED VERSUS OUTER DIRECTED ORIENTATION
Cultures that are inner directed in nature belief that the control the environment and make use
of opportunities while cultures with outer directedness belief that the environment controls
them. (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2001)When managers from these three countries meet, German
managers will always convince their colleagues, to belief that they can control on the working
environment. Mean while the French manager will insist that the environment controls their
activities and fate determines the success of their project (Trompenaars 1997, cited in Mead,
2005). Also the manager from Netherlands will have similar views with the German manger.
Hodgets and Luthans, (2001) points out that the German and Netherlands manager might be
aggressive because they will always want to be in control believing that they control their
success or failure.
3.7 TIME AS SEQUENCE VERSUS TIME AS SYNCHRONISATION
Hodgetts and Luthans, (2001) points out that country differ in time orientation. Some are
sequential in nature and others are synchronic. Looking at the three countries in question,
these authors’ points out that the French manager is sequential in timing, portraying, that he is
very strict with time and schedules. This also applies to the German manager, but this is
different with the Dutch manager as he is not strict with time. The French and German manager
will follow schedules strictly and will not like to discuss or welcome interruptions outside the
schedule. Mean while, the manager from Netherlands does not follow the schedules strictly
and can always change time tables due to influence from close relationships. During working
hours he can always stop to greet friends but this is unwelcomed by the French and German
managers.
4 PART B
Germany, France and Netherlands have similarities which give them a better edge for business.
But at the same time, their differences can lead to complex issues which might hinder the
progress of the project.
| Page 11
January 13, 2011
The success of this project lies on the way the managers communicate skillfully and dedicate
themselves in working as a team.
Mead, (2005) is of the view that these managers can succeed as a team if the have good
communication skills, good expatriate training and proper organizational structuring.
Knowing that these managers come have different languages communication might slow down
the progress of the project. But this can be solved if the managers have a good language
training (Mead, 2005). If this proof difficult, the mangers can make use of translation machines
(Tayeb, 2003) the author emphasizes that these machines always be managed and monitored.
The manner of communication should be taken into consideration by the three mangers.
Managers from France and Germany will like to be talked to in respect of their status. The
manager from Netherlands should take note of this (Tayeb, 2003). Knowing the first way to
start the business communication is important. The Dutch prefer giving cards and gifts as a way
to start a good relationship in business. The German and French managers should accept that
as this is still better for a start.
If there is a female manager among this group the Dutch should tend to respect her as their
male counter pacts. The Dutch should respect her because she is well respected and
responsible enough to have been chosen as a representative (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000).
French and German managers should be patient with the Dutch managers when making
decisions. The Dutch are slow in making decisions. At the same time the Dutch managers
should not take advantage of that knowing that they have to be straight to the point in order to
save time (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). Also the Dutch should avoid over communication while
French and Germans should check the balance by avoiding under communication (Mead, 2005).
Leadership roles should be assigned respectively according to skills. The French and German will
always want to be the Boss. This might lead to the Dutch having feelings of lack of belonging.
The Dutch tend to suppress their emotions and this might not be noticed by Germans and
French (Mead, 2005).
| Page 12
January 13, 2011
French managers will always prefer a close supervision on the project unlike the Dutch and
Germans who belief that laid down rules and regulations lead to achieving goals. In this respect,
the main goal of the project should be detailed and strategic plans should be drawn on
performance check (Tayeb, 2003).
The way information is circulated and important documents released is to be spelled out. The
French have a tendency of keeping business secreats unlike the Dutch and Germans. This will
help to have a good level of trust amongst them, as trust is a motivator for maintaining good
relationship in business. At the same time Dutch managers should avoid unimportant messages
by giving quality to smooth information flow (Mead, 2005).
5 CONCLUSION
Mangers from the three countries should have good training on how to handle cultural
differences before they meet. Even during the project training can still be given. When sending
a representative, the person should be well qualified and should have a good knowledge of
cross cultural influences. Some one who has a good experience on international business and
has had a good experience on travelling should be asked to represent the company. Also they
should have an excellent plan, on what should be communicated and how it should be
communicated. It will be better if the three managers choose a common language, such as
French.
| Page 13
January 13, 2011
APPENDICES
HOFSTEDE CULTURAL DIMENSION
POWER MASCULINITY UNCERYAINTY
AVOIDANCE
INDIVIDUALISM LONG TERM ORIENTATION
GERMANY 35 66 65 67 31
FRANCE 38 14 53 83 31
NETHER-
LANDS
68 43 86 71 44
MAP OF FRANCE
| Page 14
January 13, 2011
MAP OF GERMANY
MAP OF NETHERLANDS
| Page 15
January 13, 2011
References
Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (2000) International Management. Cultural, Strategy and
Behaviour. 4th edition. London: Mc-Graw Hill.
Mead, R. (2005) International Management .Cross-cultural Dimensions .3rd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Schneidner, C. S. and Barsoux, J. (2003) Managing across Cultures, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson
education Limted.
Tayeb, M. (2003) International Management Theories and Practices, Harlow: Financial Times
Prentice Hall.
Trompenaars, F. (1997) Riding the waves of culture in: Mead, R. (2005) International
Management. Cross cultural Dimensions.3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Google (2011) Map of France [online]. Google Maps. Available from: www.maps.google.co.uk.
[Accessed 12th January 2011].
| Page 16