Management in Cross-Cultural Dimensions-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Analyze the Organizational Culture and the Managerial Processes prevailing in two different countries to establish a Cross-Cultural front. Answer: Thesis Statement: This report sets a comparison between Australia and France to understand the process of organizational culture and managerial proceedings in relevance to the same. Introduction: National Culture refers to the differences set in the values between the groups of variant nations as well as regions existing in the global network. While, organizational culture reflects the differences existing in the practices between the variant organizations or within the organization among the various sub-departments. Professor Geert Hofstede, responsibly and commendably performed one major comprehensive researches based on national values to introduce the dimension of paradigm. Utilization of primary data from valid researches based on multi-national companies, potentially bearing subsidiaries in almost 60 countries, Professor Hofstede discovered highly independent dimensions, for example, power distance, the uncertainty avoidance dealing with strong versus weak, individualism and collectivism and likewise. Following an analysis on national culture, Prof. Hofstede conducted a similar research on the organizational front in the 1980s orienting Danish and Dutch workforces. Thes e studies relate to the discovery of various dimensions of comparison between the various organizations present across a region. These are particularly set on strategic practices rather any value oriented systems, which, with the support of an efficient leadership technique, can be appropriately monitored or evaluated by the organizational management. Based on Hofstedes framework, this report presents a Multi-focus organizational infrastructure reflecting the cultural differences existing in the work front. Discussion: GREET HOFSTEDE: Paradigm of dimensions: In accordance with Greet Hofstedes definition for culture, it can be stated or the culture can be reflected as a collaborative programming of thoughts and understanding that can be set as the field of comparison between the various categories of people relative to others. The studies relevant to the Prof. Hofstedes researches play a crucial role in setting basic differences between the cultures followed between the nations (Kinsley 2013). The various levels of culture that can be set as the dimension are the symbols, rituals, and national culture under the value-oriented paradigm, while a major operational part of this is the organizational culture and the practices followed within the same. This report as stated previously insights the comparison between the organizational cultures of France and Australia based on the managerial processes highlighting some of the chosen fields as would be discussed in the later segments of the report. Comparison in Organizational Culture and Managerial processes: Based on the Hofstedes model, the dimensions for comparison chosen for the two selected countries are individualism versus collaboration, communication systems, and decision-making procedures, autocratic versus delegated leadership, superior-subordinate relations and team management. In the following sections, this report discusses the same. Individualism vs. Group Orientation: Exploring the Australian culture through the lens or view of Hofstede, the overview presents a transparent transcript relative to the other global cultures present. This fundamental issue deals with the dimension determining the degree of interdependence followed within a society among the members. This is in a definite way, is linked with the populations introductory image in regards to I or We. In accordance to an individualistic society, the people within it are expected to follow the methodologies of self-help and/or to the extent of only including their immediate correspondents. While in a collectivist community or as stated the group-oriented methodology, the people comprised in the same feel responsible towards each other and satisfactorily takes care of each other in an exchanging procedure and remain loyal towards one another. In accordance with this dimension, Australia earned a score of 90, as the culture followed in there is a highly individualistic one. This reflects the fact that the Australian society in connected with each other in the most minimal way possible that is weakly linked and connected orienting around resources or communism. This translates the fact in a transparent way, that the people only feel responsible towards their immediate collaborates that is foe self-help and direct families. As per the business world, the theories explain that the existing employees are expected to be self-dependent and should definitely, display initiatives. Again, in this modern world, which is entirely an exchange-based in relevance to the work that involves hiring, staffing, communicating, promoting issues and decisions is subjected to the available merits or evidences relative to the existing and potential capabilities of the candidates. This individualism is featured with high level of specialization, standardization and formalizations, which are interconnected. This dimension reflects an environment of high self-esteem, each individual concentrates in seeking power and the scale for competiveness is in a definite way high (Bird and Mendenhall 2016). Thus, the results translate the fact that the probability for a centralized theme for the existing organizations is thus, very low surrounding high individualism. Communication: Organizational communication can be characterized by two major dimensions, openness and load, which relevantly reflects the free progression of information, inclusive of opinions and thoughts among the population while the communication load refers to the degree of complexity involved in the communication process, at times, owing to the volume of information. This dimension is features by certain functions, which are operationalised as, directive, supportive, democratic and cultural. Directive communication is in relevance to the messages concerning the agenda of influencing, controlling or maintenance of personnel. Cultural communication refers to accept the new members and adapt a communicating means. Democratic communication involves the maximum participation in the field of decision making, from or within the organization (Chanlat 2013). Studies show that the directive communication in an organizational front is positively relative to the work stress present as well as supportive communication. Supportive communication from the population comprised in an organization is recognized to be a mediator of occupational stress (Ang and Van 2015). In relevance to the Australian studies, communication with the fellow workers or colleagues was evaluated to be lower in level. Supportive communication is recorded to be low, which is in direct connection with the occupational stress, which in turn will be owing to the high level of competition maintained within the organizations. Alongside, and in relevance to the researches, it is profoundly discovered due to high level of individualistic work front the democratic as well as the cultural communication is negatively connected to the occupational stress. The free flow of information is also restricted due the negativity of the stress presented in the organizational work front. Decision Making Procedures: As previously noted, supportive communication necessarily needs to be high for a mass participation in decision-making, this provides the employees the opportunities to have control over the work front. Following the level of occupational stress in the Australian organizational procedures, it would be apt to state that the democratic communication witnesses a downfall. The employees complained about the imposed ideas from the administrators or the superiors as they strongly realized the lack of innovation scope in the organization, which again in turn would result in stress adversely affecting the communication system (Fiske et al. 2016). In accordance to the individualistic style of organizational proceedings, there is a seeking of high power in every individual as the competitiveness is recorded to be high. This attribute is against the share of the decision making, hence, the idea of specialization concerning this background is relatively reverse to the individualism, as this supp orts the delegation of power. This score card is henceforth low for the Australian organizations (Gafney and Kolinsky 2014). The decision-making procedures linked with the organizations is not at all democratic in nature rather in contrast, is power and designation oriented (Choker and Boradbeck 2013). Autocratic vs. Delegated Leadership: This field deals with the equality in the individuals within an organization, henceforth it is predominantly related to the participation of the employees in the decision- making. Autocratic leadership is suggestive to the kind of leadership that seeks power and is personalized to one level (Lescarbot 2013). This type of leadership does not comprise of any participative or distributive power while making any important organizational decisions. Relative to the studies and researches, the less powerful candidates or the individuals within an organization, the organizations following an individualistic approach unequally distributes the power of decision structuring. Australia earns relatively a low score in this dimension, which is equivalently recorded to be 36. In almost all the organizations in Australia, the hierarchy is constructed in accordance to convenience, the existing superiors of the organization are consistently accessible and the managers entirely rely on the individuals for the relative expertise. Both the managers is expected to be informed and consulted, which is insufficiently not met and is based on informal communication. This is as well direct and participative. Multicultural dimension is capable of affecting the leadership style within the organizations (Kinsley 2013). Superior-Subordinate relationships: The uncertainty avoidance is a dimension that creates a power distance in the management and the employee level in the Australian organizations. This involves the relationship between the individuals in an organization. The given individualistic system in the Australian work culture does not support the democratic communication in the Australian work culture. The features support the Australian organization to score 51 in this dimension, which reflects that the superiors in the organization concentrates to seek power in the organizational level (Okokwo 2016; Scriven 2016). This very characteristic creates a difference between the individuals especially between the management and the employees. In this kind of work front, the extent to which an individual tries to control the desires and emotions or impulses is quite high in the Australian front as it can be stated that the as a country, Australia is an indulgent one. Population of the Australian work culture tends to maintain a profe ssional diligence rather than connecting or concentrating on any relationship out of necessities (Tackett 2014; Thomas and Peterson 2017). The power distance and the uncertainty avoidance are the dimensions that affect the relationship between the senior level and the working employees adversely, which provides a low score relative to the same. Team-Management: The Australian leadership concentrates on high-level of performances in the work processing and the execution of the deliverables (Tjosvold 2017). The Australian leaders utilize the 360 degree diagnostic tool that provides the management to evaluate the leadership delivered by the personnel in charge of the same I relevance to the people, tasks and the skills required for performing the tasks. Team management anywhere has the prime focus of diversity management for the leaders as well as the management. Gender diversity is a common feature in any team all over the world. Masculinity is a dimension that scores relatively high in the Australian organizations (Walton et al. 2014). A low score in relevance to the feminine dimension is recorded in the team management in Australia. Australia scores about 61 in this dimension of masculinity. this results in a Masculine society, this needs management, wherein, the acceptance level should be high for every gender and no gender specialization should be given priority. For France: Individualism versus Group Orientation Through the application of the Greet Hofstede Model, the significant issue, which was addressed in this particular dimension, is the ability of interdependence, which a society must maintain among its workers. France having the score of 71, has been shown to be a society of individual. Parents usually make their child emotional and independent in respect o its groups to which they belong. Subordinates normally pay respect and pay deference to their boss, however, behind the presence or absence of boss, the employees might end up doing the exactly opposite things that what they initially promised to do so, as this can lead the employees to think that they are far better than their Boss. By going against the principles of Group Orientation, another important reflection of the power Distance, this is bearing contradictions to the formal obedience and totally rejecting the managerial process. The changes that the employee claims cannot happen by strikes, evolution or any kinds of revolts . The trade unions and the employees do not cooperate or talk together as they look to each other as both of them belonging to the different species. There is a heavy need to make a strong difference between private and work life. It means in France, the employees feel more pressurized easily because as they emotionally dependant on the saying of the boss. (Bird and Mendenhall 2016). The culture of France, which has scored higher on Power Distance, the normal combination, such interdependence, is welcomed, only if the managers act as benevolent fathers. The French employees prefer to depend upon the Central Government, which is power of impersonal nature cannot easily interfere in their private life. Communication Through the application of the Hofstede model, it can be said that a greater level of respect and love for the elegance for the usages of languages and the proper presentation of the ideas are being presented in a form of art. A sentiment of the nations pride makes it difficult to listen to the languages which is being spoken badly (Ang and Van 2015). Debates in France are quite confrontational specially from those who belong to the non- confrontational background. In France, the framing out distinction is regarded as an intellectual aim, which is an aim to help in order to move the process forward (Carter 2013). During the discussions in any meeting, interruptions would take place with the other groups in while the conversation is active and the French people during this time, would become highly emotional. This situation animated theatrical styles, which is again looked down as conducive in order to reach the final results. The French people admire the rational exposures about the well properly defined ideas and while listening, it can be heard that this types of comments are being made that the idea is not logical enough, it indicates that the problems are lying ahead. Such comments can be made more accurately which can be interpreted as I do not see any logic in your argument, hence I cannot buy it. Written business in France is extremely formal and stylized which is having an etiquette, which can be indicated as anachronistic while translating. However, it is important to predict that anything, which is there for writing, should be seen as the symbol of good education and intelligence. Mainly business of France emphasized on courtesy and also a fair level of formality (Chanlat 2013). The business in France is being conducted slowly. The employee needs to be patient and must not be appear ruffled and must be abide by the strict protocols of the company. It is important to avoid the paradoxical behavio r and a French would go through the minute details of any proposal. As mentioned before, the French people are blessed with a greater quality of the debating skills that prove them they are having the intelligence of judging the situations (Chanlat 2013). Decision making process In order to bring an effective cross cultural management, it is significant to remember that hierarchy is an important part of the business culture of France. It is a country where privileges are given to rank, both figuratively and literally (Choker and Boradbeck 2013). The process of decision making is done at the highest levels, often without waging consultation with the French subordinates. Initially, the process of decision making is closely linked with the idea of rationality, the idea which is generated considered positive for the actions by manager. Specially in France, the makers of decision concentrate to emphasize the logical aspects of their actions and thinkin, logically being ideal, which is most of the times referred to in the synonym of France Cartesianism. The term which has been derived from the name of a French Philosopher name Descartes belonging to the Enlightened era of France (Fiske et al. 2016). Therefore, it has become indeed customary to consider Descartes as the model of intellectual rigor and his ideas have become the base for the modern ideas or rationalism. The decision making process by the French managers in the organization follow certain process through the implementation of the following stages. A general model is being followed while the decision making process in the French organization and these important stages are as follows Stage 1: Perception of problems Stage 2: Indentifying the problems Stage 3: Formulation of problems Stage 4: Searching other alternatives Stage 5: Evaluating the alternatives Stage 6: Controlling the decision making process of the organization. Therefore, in this context, it is important to determine the stages, which are needed to be used to execute effective process of decision- making. Firstly, the problems needs to be judged on the base of perception and the middle managers prepare and analyse cases and they have to present their results to their own superior, who generally comes up with decisions. The middle managers tend to depend on their superior manager for the purpose of recognition, promotion and important other aspects. The subordinates would give their best to appear good in the eyes of their superior manager, which incorporate not only having all the possible alternatives but also showing the intellectualism in the context of the analysis (Gafney and Kolinsky 2014). Autocratic leadership versus delegated leadership The French are being considered as a people of passion and this reflected on their style of leadership (Halls 2014). The managers of France are tended to be authoritarian and autocratic, the managers tend to focus on the big picture, which looks at the issues which the company is facing before dealing with the issues in relation to their staffs. In the model of Autocratic management, the opinions about the staff at entry level and even experienced the middle managers who would be dismissed (Kinsley 2013). The French managers are not based on any personal influence, the power of the manager is linked to the power of the position in the organization. France follows Transactional and transformational styles of leadership in order to make contribution to the success and effectiveness. The leaders of France can be democratic, affective or authoritarian. The transformational leaders in France generate valuable and positive transformation in the followers who are aiming at developing a new style of leadership. The French group consists of the fully autocratic group and the French leaders use the punishments or rewards in order to motivate their subordinates. According to Hofstede, France is country which has high PD, which is more likely to have leadership which is autocratic or paternalistic since the employees are not willing to go against the decisions made by boss (Lescarbot 2013). Superior Subordinate Relationships The relationship between the superior and subordinate in France is medium as the leadership is autocratic and the employees cannot go against the decisions of the managers (Okokwo 2016; Scriven 2016).However, being a superior, it is the responsibility of the manager in order to bring rights and responsibilities. The superior always coordinate with their employees in France to collaborate and arrange meeting. It is the obligation of superior to take care of the workers wellness and safety in the work (Walton et al. 2014). It is the responsibility of the staff to cooperate with the managers by waging proper communication. In the organizations of France, working together makes can address the emergency situations and there the superior always trust their subordinates while carrying out their work. The French leaders tend to show their autocratic mindset to the people who are belonging from the different cultural background. The people who are from the other cultural background, needs to know about the Frances cultural background in order to properly communicate with the leaders of the country France (Tackett 2014; Thomas and Peterson 2017). Managing teams of France France welcomes people from different cultural background and the country wants collective cooperation from the people coming from the different countries. Against this background, it is important to emphasize on the managing teams of France (Tjosvold 2017). The managing teams of France lay its contribution in meeting the important targets which concerns the economic development by attracting the investors from foreign and promoting the image of the business of France. Outside the country France, the country carries out its operation according to Decree of Government and this needs to be aligned with the decree of Government or the head of the diplomatic corps (Walton et al. 2014). Conclusion The world has become the community today and the world judges the ability of the country to work accordingly to perform better in their organizational culture. The cross cultural management is becoming too much complex these days, therefore, it is important to emphasize on the cross cultural management in both the countries such as France and Australia in terms of the business management. In this report, both the countries France and Australia are being compared with each other. It can be found that the factors, which are multicultural are tend to be quite higher in the country France. The business always plays an important role while managing the cultural teams in their organization. Similarities and differences are always prevailing in both the countries and it is the responsibility of the countries to respect each other in this particular sphere and give utter importance to their nation. The Universities or the schools must come up with different cultural management task, in order to teach their students regarding the management of cross cultural people. Alongside, the business must come up with certain objectives to fulfill the hope of the people working in the organization. References Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L., 2015.Handbook of cultural intelligence. Routledge. Bermingham, A. and Brewer, J., 2013.Consumption Of Culture. Routledge. Bird, A. and Mendenhall, M.E., 2016. From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation.Journal of World Business,51(1), pp.115-1 Carter, D., 2013.Always almost modern: Australian print cultures and modernity. Australian Scholarly Publishing. Chanlat, J.F., 2013.Cross-cultural management: culture and management across the world. Routledge. Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C. and House, R.J. eds., 2013.Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Routledge. Fiske, J., Hodge, B. and Turner, G., 2016.Myths of Oz: reading Australian popular culture. Routledge. French, R., 2015.Cross-cultural management in work organisations. Kogan Page Publishers. Gaffney, J. and Kolinsky, E. eds., 2014.Political Culture in France and Germany (RLE: German Politics): A Contemporary Perspective. Routledge. Halls, W.D., 2014.Education, Culture and Politics in Modern France: Society, School, and Progress Series. Elsevier. Kingsley, J., Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C. and Bolam, B., 2013. Developing an exploratory framework linking Australian Aboriginal peoples connection to country and concepts of wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health,10(2), pp.678-698. Lescarbot, M., 2013.The History of New France (volume III). Champlain Society. Okonkwo, U., 2016.Luxury fashion branding: trends, tactics, techniques. Springer. Scriven, M., 2016.Jean-Paul Sartre: politics and culture in postwar France. Springer. Tackett, T., 2014.Religion, revolution, and regional culture in eighteenth-century France: the ecclesiastical oath of 1791. Princeton University Press. Thomas, D.C. and Peterson, M.F., 2017.Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts. Sage Publications. Tjosvold, D., 2017.Cross-cultural management: foundations and future. Routledge. Walton, J., Priest, N., Kowal, E., White, F., Brickwood, K., Fox, B. and Paradies, Y., 2014. Talking culture? Egalitarianism, color-blindness and racism in Australian elementary schools.Teaching and Teacher Education,39, pp.112-122