Transvergence of culture and global competitiveness

 

 

 

 

Transvergence of culture and global competitiveness

 

Amongst many challenges managers face in a fast globalizing competitive market, the most difficult process would be acculturation of values, business practices and traditions in a culturally sensitive and technologically innovative manner. Cultural aspects have also evolved in shaping management practices in forms of convergence, divergence and crossvergence. This paper will examine the concept of crossvergence and provide an alternative of cultural interactions in a form of transvergence which takes into consideration of both cultural embeddedness and technological innovation in a given cultural context.

The convergence aspect of organizational culture focuses on the homogeneity of culture. The convergence reflects the global notion of culture most closely as its basic concept implies that managers in industrialized nations are willing to accept business attitudes and common behaviors in other industrialized countries regardless of the external cultural differences (Pascale & Maguire, 1980) In the process of liberalizing markets, developing institutions and adopting modern technology, business behaviors become similar as players involved in such activities are willing to embrace common values with respect to work ethics and economic behaviors. However, this convergence view can be biased toward non-Western values as it tends to emphasize the Anglo neo-liberal approach while overlooking national and regional variations (Gupta and Wang, 2004). In the worst case scenario, convergence can threaten the viability of national or local identities in the presence of fierce global competitiveness. The divergence aspect of culture is the opposite end of the convergence in that it respects national culture as the dominant power in shaping values and culture. This view interprets globalization from a local perspective thereby embracing varied and multifaceted interpretations of global trends within the realm of domestic culture. As this concept tends to negate the importance of global viewpoints, the advantages from learning from global perspectives and other cultures are missed in this type of system.

As Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley (2006) suggest in their studies, the hybrid of these convergence and divergence aspects, called “crossvergence” is a preferred alternative which finds a middle ground between national divergent culture and the dominant global culture. The cross cultural similarities are embraced, and national cultural dimensions are expected to undergo change over time according to this view (Kelly et al., 2006). The complex interplay of converging and diverging value creation processes creates this crossvergence system that is inclusive to all cultures to the extent that it combines values embedded in national culture including economic and political influences like ideology, policy and trends. Here, the integrations between sub groups, sub cultures and values would forge a different, unique value mechanism. Although this system combines a number of strategic perspectives as one of the best alternatives to the existing global value system, the crossvergence perspective tends to underestimate the dynamic of cultures and view cultures in rather static terms (Gupta and Wang, 2004). The weakness of crossvergence theory is fetal in that culture is proven not static—especially in business terms and in various contextual conditions including global competition, technological development and shifts in trends and values. As Kelley, MacNab and Worthley (2006) point out in their research the dynamic aspect of culture should be detailed out and understood in terms of regional level, industry-specific systems level, and long-term dynamic effects on culture.

             The system that is culturally sensitive and up-to-date should be able to combine both culture embedded in society and the technological capability of a firm to deal with the evolution of cultures in a timely and efficient manner. This evolutionary perspective or so-called transvergence perspective taps into the opportunities and strengths of both globalization and localization (Gupta and Wang, 2004). The transvergence theory perceives culture as dynamic and yet temporal implying that business entities should take more proactive actions in value creation and acculturation. Instead of looking at culture as a static or nostalgic concept, firms should be able to reinterpret culture and historic values embedded in the society and organization to make them relevant for the global conceptualization of culture in a broader market landscape. Considering both global experience and historical contexts, each firm would be able to come up with its own original and distinctive perspective and value system. This will enable the firm to look deep inside of its indigenous and embedded values and reinterpret them for new meanings. In order for the firm to take this transvergence perspective, it must have global perspectives and goals with respect to its strategies and organizational culture.

             To take the transvergence aspect in reinterpretation of cultures and existing values, a business entity should be able to understand different contexts in which varying cultural parameters are being tested and evaluated.  These varying cultural parameters include local, regional, departmental, and technical variations. For example, the Chinese Guanxi, an intricate system of favor exchange typical of all Chinese businesses, is in fact extended to in-group members and less acceptable in other cultural contexts. This indicates as long as local values and cultures are believed to be accepted only among in-group members that share the same cultural values, it is rarely used in external contexts: the Chinese business people would not expect the same Guanxi outside their cultural parameters, say with their foreign business associates. This implies that most cultural values are limited to their local boundaries in a sense that people tend to avoid uncertainty created when local cultures are extended to outside of their boundaries. The extent of the Guanxi practice would vary from region to region in China. As certain regions like Hong Kong is more culturally diverse, whereas some regions in mainland China would anticipate more indigenous cultural values and thus encourage more traditional and rigorous practice of Guanxi. The case study of Kelley, MacNab and Worthley (2006) is limited in a sense that it surveys only the banking industry. Due to different work types and varying attitudes to cultures, some departments like HR, sales and marketing tend to practice high-context cultures whereas some other departments like finance, technical and engineering tend to practice low-context cultures (O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen, 1994). The susceptibility to cultural differences thus varies from types of industries, departments and work attitudes. Lastly, technological capability of a firm determines its readiness to extend its values externally and to embrace other cultures internally. A strategy of first-mover advantages with technological innovation is a valuable execution tactic for a firm to readily accept the transvergence system. When it has the capability to accept new values and extend its culture, the firm will be able to craft its own identity consistent with a transvergence perspective.

             In understanding the interplay between cultural values, this paper has suggested a system of transvergence that combines both global variations and non-static national cultures. The complex and intricate interactions between different cultural values in an emerging global market context will be characterized by  further studies on complementary, substitute and/or opposing forces of local and regional variations of culture, strategy, norms, and technology. Globalization forms new cultural conditions in the presence of embedded cultural values and technological capabilities of a nation or an organization.

 

 

References:

 

Gupta, Vipin and Wang, Jifu. (2004) ‘The Transvergence Proposition Under Globalization: Looking Beyond Convergence, Divergence and Crossvergence’, Multinational Business Review, 12(2), PP. 37-57 [Online]. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=16106917&site=ehost-live&scope=site (Accessed 11 July 2010).

 

Kelley, L., MacNab, B. & Worthley, R. (2006) ‘Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: a longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors’, Journal of International Management, 12 (1), pp. 67–84, Science Direct [Online]. DOI:10.1016/j.intman.2005.04.002 (Accessed 8 July 2010).

 

O'Hara-Devereaux, M. and Johansen, R. (1994) ‘Transcending Cultural Barriers: Context, Relationships, and Time’ [Online]. Available from:  http://www.csub.edu/tlc/options/resources/handouts/fac_dev/culturalbarries.html. (Accessed 13 July 2010).

 

Pascale, R.T. and Maguire, M.A. (1980) ‘Comparison of selected work factors in Japan and the United States’, Human Relations, 33(7), pp. 433-455.

 

by Jules Lee