Managing Across Cultures - Coursework Example

Managing Across Cultures Name Institution Course Date Managing Across Cultures Culture is a popular word that is used all over the world although with different definitions. Brewer and Venaik (2011) defines culture as “Individuals dwelling in various regions of the world with different attitudes, behaviours as well a means of doing things”. In addition, Earley (2006) also defines culture as the attitudes and behaviour exhibited by a specific social group of organization. Furthermore, culture can well be defined as the aggregated scheduling of the mind that differentiates an individual belonging to a certain social group (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006). In general, culture is a set of values, actions as well as attitudes offering guidance to the moral behaviours of people within a group. Research into the global business has progressively become an active field over the past years and is predicted to increase in order for the operations of internationalization to proceed into the future. Researches related to culture are getting vast and therefore understanding culture will be perceived as a more and more significant aspect (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006). Cultural models determine the arrangement of fundamental matters that impact the operations of both groups as well as individuals. In order to clearly understand the dissimilarities in cultures, a number of models have been formulated which includes Hofstede Model and Trompenaars Model. These models have offered scholars with a demanded perspective which looks into the structure of national cultures (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006). However, there have been a number of debates between Hostede Model and Trompenaar Model which have argued about the similarities a well as the differences between the two models. This essay provide an explanation of both the Hofstede Model and Trompenaar Model and carry out an analysis detaiing out the similarities and differences of the two models. In addition, this essay will also analyze their usefulness for understanding the influences of cultural differences on organizations. Geert Hofstede was a Dutch psychologist who came up with the Hofstede Model which explicates the source of differences in behaviours which often at times results in problems (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). In order to come up with explanations as well as solutions to the various issues created by individuals originating from various cultures who work together, Geert Hofstede encompassed five components of cultural differentiation. These factors comprised of individualism/collectiveness, power distance, masculinism/feminism, long/short-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance. These five components explains the differences between nations and the people (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). On the other hand, Fons Trompenaars was a Dutch author who focused on the area of cross-cultural communication. He came up with the Trompenaars Model which explains the standardization of management operations in international companies due to internationalization which enforce their perspectives to their subsidiaries (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). Moreover, Fons Trompenaars also mentions that issues within an organization occurs because they do not take into consideration the various cultural differences that exist between their staff members as well as other methods of management which aren’t suitable for other cultures. Therefore, Trompenaars Model indicates how to accomplish complications within the heterogeneous environment which comes as a huge task in today’s global managers as well as corporate leaders (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). This model was comprised of seven factors namely: universalism vs. particularism; specific vs. diffuse; invividualism vs. collectivism; attitude to the environment; attitude to time ; achievement vs. ascription and neutral vs. emotional. Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ models have a number of differences which are as follows: both models show a bit of similarity, especially amid the opinions of Hofstede’s collectivism vs. individualism and Trompenaars’ communitarianism vs. individualism which indicates no difference in the type of index to use (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). Furthermore, there exists a degree of resemblance in Hofstede’s power distance index and Trompenaars achievement vs. ascription. One measures the consented level of lifestyle of the low and high class as well as the secondary features difference whereas the other values the inspiration of the movement of low to a higher class (Earley, 2006). For instance, a marketer can deduce that in Hofstede’s model, consumers are assessed better with the high power distance index with regard to marketing luxury goods, whereas in Trompenaars’ model, index is better utilized when selling cheap products (Brewer and Venaik, 2011). Moreover, Hofstede's long-term vs. short term index shows some similarities with past/present/future predilection of Trompenaars model. The similarity is that the short-term focused cultures indicates the same course to be accessible as the past and present oriented cultures (Brewer and Venaik, 2011). On the other hand, both models also differ in a number of ways. First, Trompenaars’ Model comes out as focus-oriented since it addresses more about the matter that is on individual’s minds as well as their perspectives (Brewer and Venaik, 2011). Furthermore, it addresses the logical system and framework of individual’s behaviour and relationships. Then again, Hofstede Model defines some of values existing in individuals which eventually influences their behaviour. Therefore, the difference that arises is that Trompenaars’ findings consists only on the individual demonstrating the option and mode in which the activities are planned and dealt with whereas Hofstede Model attempts to get into the profound levels of culture and thus allows individuals to carry out their own predictions of people’s behaviours on the basis of knowledge of the concealed piece of the iceberg (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006). In addition, after keen scrutiny of dissimilar cultures, one can conclude that the outcomes attained from the two models are most at times against logic. For instance, the Trompenaars’s studies exacts that the German culture is hierarchical whereas Hofstede’s studies recognizes Germany as a comparatively low with regard to power of distance (Deresky, 2008). The two cultural dimensions presented by Hofstede and Trompenaars are useful tools for a number of themes for instance, within the structure of an organization. It is very important for individuals working in an international business to have the knowledge of the different countries and cultures (Deresky, 2008). In addition, cultural dimensions are also very important for the specific purpose of marketing because they have the ability to expedite the proposal of an optimal strategy. In addition, every society has been able to grow via the history of a dissimilar culture where it is particularly significant to consider the various methods of communication. In addition, assuming the progressive increase in industrial organization as well as the developing interdependencies among states, there is an urgent demand for a an enhanced realization of cultural effects on leadership as well as the practices within an organization (Deresky, 2008). Therefore, these cultural dimensions are very useful for understanding the impacts of cultural differences on organizations. Furthermore, cultural analysis can offer organizations with guidelines in creating a marketing strategy whenever an organization enters a foreign market which makes it necessary for them to learn about the history, culture and the general population within the society (Brewer and Venaik, 2011). For example, an organization can be able to use cultural dimensions’ theory as a guideline to collect data such as societal habits of a particular foreign market. In addition, Hofstede’s theory vividly indicates that if any individual ignores the differences in cultures, the level of communication will drop immensely as well as the morale and it might have a negative impact on the outcomes eventually. This theory also demonstrates the impacts of cultural differences on the structure of an organization. For example, in the United States, individuals favour taking risks so that they can enjoy freedom as compared to Germany here people usually avoid any risk which makes rules and regulations equally important, therefore, these theoretical models of play a very important role in ensuring that cultural differences is addressed appropriately (Earley, 2006). To sum up, there are numerous methods to the categorization of different cultures all over the world. The ones that have been adequately covered and monitored includes Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ categorization commonly referred to as cultural dimensions. The two cultural dimensions are common in a number of ways but at the same time different in other approaches. Therefore, a particular organization has to identify which section they need to adopt in order to come up with a successful strategy. In addition, Hofstede and Trompenaars’ models are one of numerous standardized approaches to cultural assessments that have stood out which help in economizing time and at the same time allowing the development of a united strategy in line with culture. Additionally, these models are useful for understanding the influence of cultural differences on organizations since they provide one with the knowledge of different countries and cultures. They also act as guidelines and they demonstrate how cultural differences influence the structure of an organization. Therefore, I agree that both Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ models of cultural differences have some similarities as well as differences and also I strongly agree that these models provide a basis of understanding the impacts of cultural differences on organizations. References Brewer, P & Venaik, S 2011, Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and Globe. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 436-445. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62 Deresky, H 2008, International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures Text and Cases, Sixth ed., Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall. Earley, P.C 2006, Leading cultural research in the future:a matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 922–931. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B & Gibson, C. B 2006, A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework.Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 285-320. doi:http://dx.doi.org?10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202 Mooij, M and Hofstede, G 2010, The Hofstede model Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85-110. Read More