International Multicultural Management
Globalization is currently advancing at a very fast rate-more than ever before in human history due to the advancements in human technology-especially with regard to transportation and communication. International relationships among nations have grown to greater extents and cross border activities have grown tremendously. Currently, the number of multinational companies is growing each and every day and the number of multinationals is ever on the increase as companies expand their scope beyond their national or local coverage. This expansion of operations has necessitated the incorporation of multicultural teams due to local variations in areas of operation. Local adaptability is becoming a necessity for any company wishing to expand its scope of operations into the international market (Selmer, 1995).
Acquisitions and mergers have become a common mode of gaining entry in to new international markets. However, all these developments come with their challenges and organizations have to work hard towards attaining smooth operations. For example, multinationals have to standardize accounting protocols and practice for activities that require uniformity and at the same time manage to address differences in culture and operations so as to acquire synergy and smooth operations through multicultural management. The biggest challenge posed so far is the management of international teams and workforce (multiculturalism). This becomes a point of interests in multinationals because of the unavoidable multiculturalism that results from internationalization (Erlenkamp, 2007).
When firms expand their local operations into different nations and localities, it becomes necessary to deploy teams that are well versed with local culture and markets in order to enhance smooth and efficient operations. This change of operations requires a shift in management policies and plans to address management changes and requirements at an international level. This paper particularly addresses these changes and any necessary requirements that may be needed to succeed in international workforce management (Selmer, 1995).
People from different cultural backgrounds intermingle for various reasons including trade, education, politics, marriage, and sports-just to mention but a few. Expansion of business organizations into foreign nations has necessitated the hiring of expatriates due to local differences in the environments of operations. These variations are necessitated by differences such as taxation regimes, legislation, language, political set ups, geography and many other related factors. The variations also necessitate the application of different, locally tailored management skills and customized plans to attain the desired goals (Selmer, 1995).
The first and most important aspect of managing any international team is to understand their cultural differences and learning how to integrate them into a well synergized team able to work together. The integration and preparation of culturally diverse people poses a great challenge. In order to address these changes there are different models of approaching management and decision-making that have been postulated. Amongst all the efforts directed towards this bid, two works and their proposed solutions seem to stand out and offer the best management perspectives. These include Geert Hofstede’s model of management and cultural evaluation that takes into account five dimensions of human culture and Fon Trompenaars model that considers a seven dimensional view.
According to Hofstede, management is not universal because the mere definition of the term carries different connotations all round the globe. He also explicitly states that management is inseparable from societal aspects because it takes place within the context of society. As a result managerial processes interact with family life, education, value systems, politics as well as governments and other organizations (Hofstede, 2003). As stated earlier the first step towards managing international teams involves understanding cultural variations within the team in order to enhance cooperation and coordination. Hofstede’s model views differences in culture through five dimensions. His first perspective is the power distance which considers the culturally acceptable level of power disparity in societies or organizations. This defines the expectations and perspectives of people in low ranks of power levels and how they accept and expect the distribution and equitability of power to be.
In this perspective differences in power between bottom and top of society is endorsed and defined by the top (leaders) and those below (followers) on an equal level. This perspective explains why power distribution in some societies is more skewed or imbalanced as compared to others. Geert Hofstede’s indices on disparity are designated nationally, and as such it would be expected teams from national localities where power disparity is low such as most Europeans states and America, managerial teams would comfortably consider using a more consultative approach towards reaching decisions and establishing consensus (Hofstede, 2003). On the other hand, a multicultural team from societies with high indices of disparity would consider having a strong leadership and decision-making top framework because the lower echelon of team members may be expected to make little contributions to decisions.
The second perspective in this framework looks at individualism versus collectivism. This is simply a measure of the levels of expectations that people have either to be cared for or to care for. This also includes their perception of autonomy. Teams from societies with a high index of individualism have higher autonomy and ability to prefer delegation of duties and decision-making. Thus managing international teams with such a perception would require that they be granted more autonomy in order to operate freely without feeling constrained or fearing to make decisions (Jackson & Joshi, 2003). On the other hand, teams from nationalities with a low index of individualism or rather high collectivism would require a clear framework that can be used towards reaching decisions. Therefore, these teams require less autonomy in management and instead prefer their duty delegations to be made in form of team work. These international groups’ delivery can best be enhanced through networking and cooperation.
The third dimension reviews masculinity and femininity. This view looks at role distribution in various societal and organizational set ups. According to the perspective male roles differ greatly in different cultures whereas, female roles differ less across society (Hofstede, 2003). For example societies in Middle Eastern, Asian and African nations are not comfortable in the traditional sense to have female leaders in teams, whereas their western counterparts view this as a normal thing. Therefore, when managing multinational teams in these localities requires the management team to look into how to these teams tend to react to gender issues. Teams in localities that score less on femininity may not appreciate the delegation of leadership roles to females and thus they may feel uncomfortable if under the leadership of females. Nations and societies that score high on femininity have women and men that equally assertive and as such they may be comfortable with female leadership.
Hofstede’s fourth dimension of consideration in multicultural management is the avoidance of uncertainty. This looks at cultural differences in light of how societies prefer to certain and well structured cases over uncertain cases. This could also be interpreted as the level of willingness to undertake risks in society. Societies such as those in most western nations are more comfortable to individually take on risks, whereas, societies in most Asian nations and middle eastern nations prefer to take a slow, systematic approach which may include carrying out a lot of consultation in order to avoid uncertainties in seemingly uncertain situations. Therefore, managing an international team composed of team members from Middle Eastern and Arabian nations would require the management team to be more consultative when it comes to decision-making in order to avoid conflict in the face of negative results. This is important is establishing unanimity and validity of teamwork and decisions reached and avoidance of conflict in team management.
The fifth perspective looks at the short-term versus long-term orientation of societies (Hofstede, 2001). This perspective looks at how societies may be concerned with momentary issues of culture or how they may have a more futuristic focus. On the other hand, Hampden and Trompenaars present a model that has seven defined perspectives, some of which are similar to Geert’s. The first perspective is universalism versus particularism. This aspect looks at what society values most with regard to societal rules, laws and regulations or the values of relationships. Particularism chooses to judge situations only in relation to their contextual happening, whereas, universalism only uses pre-set standards and fixed rules to evaluate situations.
The collectivism and individualism perspective in Troompenaars case is similar Geert’s. The third perspective in this framework looks as integrative versus analytical approaches to decision-making. Integrative approaches entail putting together all components of an item in order to have the whole picture, whereas, the analytical approach insists on breaking down components in order to analyze them differently (Trompenaars & Charles, 1997). The analytical approach holds that the answers and understanding are in the details, whereas the integrative model argues that breaking the item to be analyzed into sub-components may result to the lose of the bigger picture. The fourth perspective looks at in-directed versus out-directed views. In-directed views hold that solutions are found in intuitive thinking and thus hold that all solutions can be found from the human mind.
On the other hand, out-directed perspectives hold that solutions to problems are found from the environment and therefore seeking solutions should involve analyzing data collected from the outward environment. The views on time are also culturally different and may affect different teams depending on their cultural compositions. The held views include sequential and synchronous perception of time. Under the sequential view, events are viewed as separate entities which take place one after the other. In this view, order is a result of serialization. On the other hand, the synchronous approach views events as parallel happenings. The view conceives the creation of order as the creation of coordination. The sixth perspective looks at the acquisition of status through either achievement or ascription (Trompenaars & Charles, 1997).
Under achievement the acquisition of status should be as a result of achievement through work, whereas; under ascription a status is accorded under non-meritorious circumstances. The last dimension of cultural differences consideration looks at equality versus hierarchy. In a hierarchical view society is seen as a stratified organ with various compositions differing in power and status, whereas, in an equal society there less perceptions of power disparity. (Trompenaars & Charles, 1997)
In view of the stated dimensions and their considerations Geert states that people tend to act and think while considering acquired, past experiences and therefore, their specific perspectives and perceptions of situations are determined by their cultural backgrounds. Therefore, when managing a multicultural team the various views of different members have to be understood and somehow taken care of. This perspectives offer insight in making team work managerial decisions and in running teamwork affairs. However, from their analysis we also learn that the practice of management is not universal, but rather localized to some extent (Distefano et al. 2010).
The management of any international team may encounter various challenges including language and communication problems, cultural misunderstanding and differences in value systems. For example, a team of two engineers may be assigned to a task-a German and Japanese engineer. After the commencement of their duties the German may quickly draw up the work plan and immediately commence his work, whereas, the Japanese will be more concerned with establishing rapport and candid communication before commencement of work, and he may therefore consider approaching the German for short session of getting to know each other. Under this typical situation, at the end of three days the German may complain that the Japanese is lazy, whereas; the Japanese may also complain that the German in unfriendly and difficult to work with. This example shows how different people have different value systems which may lead to conflict.
In view of the situation above there is necessity for various members of a team to first learn about each other before they can embark on working together. This may help in making smooth cooperation and coordination, unlike when they work together as total strangers (Morbarak, 2005). This could be facilitated in international teams through training sessions tailored to make team members conscious about the existence of different culture and values systems. The mere act of understanding a person’s cultural background may help any team member to cooperate well with others (Carnevale & Stone, 1994). Apart from merely enhancing awareness of cultural diversity, there is a need to teach members the importance of cultural diversity and how to enhance cultural tolerance in the face of diversity. The team members may also be taught on how to cooperate and enhance better communication. When members learn cross-cultural communication skills they are better enabled to communicate than when they are not taught on how to conduct cross-cultural communication (Carnevale & Stone, 1994).
Bibliography/References
Anderson, N. (2002),. Industrial, work and organizational psychology, 2nd edition, SAGE Publishers
Carnevale, A. and Stone, S. (1994),. Diversity beyond the Golden Rule. The Training and Development Journal, October 1994, pp 22-3
Distefano, J. Deetz, J. Maznevski, M. and Lane, W. H. (2010),. International Management Behavior: Leading with a Global Mindset, 6th edition, John Wiley and Sons
Erlenkamp, M. (2007),. Managing International Teams and Workforce Diversity, GRIN Verlag publishers
Troompenaars, A. and Hampden, T. C. (1997),. Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in global business, McGraw Hill Publishers
Hofstede, H. G. (2003),. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 3rd edition. SAGE Publishers
Hofstede, E. G. 2001,. Cultural Dimensions, retrieved on 29th April 2011 from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_arab_world.shtml
Jackson, E. S. and Joshi, A. (2003),. Managing workforce diversity to enhance cooperation in organizations, retrieved on 29th April, 2011 from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sjacksox/Publications/ManagingWorkforce.pdf
Morbarak, E. M. (2005),. Managing diversity: toward a globally inclusive workplace, Sage Publishers
Selmer, J. (1995). Expatriate management: new ideas for international business, Greenwood Publishing Group of Publishers
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
