Globalization and Cross Cultural Analysis of Cultures

 

 

Globalization and Cross Cultural Analysis of Cultures

 - Jules Lee

Comparative analysis of cultures in management studies raises a number of issues as to the validity of uniform cultural definition, measurability of any one culture against any other, and the existence of a number of cultural interactions in business settings. Globalization has opened up the methods by which businesses are run and allowed transfers of employees from country to country. All these have contributed to the rising interests and controversies regarding cultural analysis in management. Despite the continuing empirical and practical efforts in comparative analysis of cultures, many scholars and practitioners see globalization has undermined the cultural definition of management since management practices reflect values other than cultures.

Comparative models of cultural analysis raise some controversies. As for cultural analysis, a reference frame is not definite. It is ambiguous as to how one culture can be measured and interpreted against any other. The bases of cultural analysis and the weight given to cultural values differ across cultures (Mead and Andrews, 2009, p. 57). This implies that equivalence in meanings is difficult to substantiate, especially among different language groups and countries with geographic proximity. The juxtaposition of two or more cultures requires a reference point or a set of standardized cultural practices, and this process unintentionally makes one culture appear superior to others. Cultural dichotomies should be accepted as they are; in-depth analysis, a given definition, and/or further categorization for the sake of analysis and debate could stretch the meaning to the extent that the culture notion in business is easily distorted. When managers rely too much on the cultural awareness and cultural analysis of certain business activities, a natural flow of case-by-case business decisions and practices can be disrupted. Furthermore, simple bi-lateral analysis of culture in multinational organizations can be misleading since there are more than two but a number of cultural factors interacting delicately to create business-specific norms outside and inside a business entity. Boyacigiller et al. (2003) compare cultures via cross-cultural management research by examining interactions between persons from different cultures and multiple-culture groupings where members of many different cultures interact. Therefore, in a globalizing market, culture should be defined and adopted from cross-cultural management analysis.

Many MNEs with cultural diversity, like the Coca-Cola Company, do not specify the term ‘cultural diversity’ in their business management notions, but instead uses a more inclusive term, ‘affirmative action.’ For multinational companies in global markets, the culture notion can be ambiguous and misleading as ‘culture’ implies rather hidden and ambivalent meanings such as racism, westernization, and Eurocentric standards. This is why many managers accept culture, instead as a ‘fluid’ notion that can shift as values and behaviors of employees and decision makers change. The term, ‘affirmative action’ on the other hand, is more inclusive as it deals with a wide range of issues like gender equity, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and political beliefs, and thus more inclusive and flexible than simple comparative adaptation of cultures.

For example, IBM Australia's cultural diversity management style also demonstrates that managers need to understand and predict fast changes in values and cultural norms. IBM conducts employee opinion survey (EOS) regularly to provide the hard data to substantiate business interpretation of cultural diversity. In order to make cultural diversity as an integral part of IBM Australia, they combine push and pull strategies. Formalized training and policies are conducted in a top-down manner, whereas the momentum by individuals who are passionate about cultural diveristy brings about real progress (Nicolson, 2009). IBM has its own professional development of business culture studies like 'QuickView,' an intranet-based resources pool that stores information on how to conduct business successfully with business partners or colleagues from overseas (Nicolson, 2009). This business tool offers handy information on business protocol and communication skills. The system is constantly upgraded by addressing cultural gaps and dealing with issues and case studies on conflict resolution.

A genuine understanding of cultural differences in management comes from a flexible attitude and a commitment to understanding and accepting individuals' unique characteristics and willingness to learn from them. This requires multifaceted analysis methods in dealing with culture rather than dichotomizing cultures as a 'we versus others' concept. Cross cultural analysis of management culture would enrich the meaning of diversity and expand the cultural notion further to functional diversity of how individuals think and process activities differently.

 

 

References:

 

Boyacigiller, N.A., Kleinberg, M.J., Phillips, M.E. and Sackmann, S.A. (2003) ‘Conceptualizing culture: elucidating the streams of research in cross-cultural management,’ In Punnett, B.J. and Shenkar, O. (eds). Handbook for International Management Research.

 

Mead, R. & Andrews, T.G. (2009) International management. 4th ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Nicolson, K. (2009) 'Cultural diversity, IBM Style,' Human Resources Leader, 19 August 2009 [Online]. Available from: http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/74/0C021774.asp?Type=60&Category=903 (Accessed 10 July 2010).

 

 

*** Copyrighted ***