Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of organization culture
Impact of organization culture
Impact of organization culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of organization culture
Comparative Management Practices in China and the West
It is true to say that globalisation is a two-way street. As international business and trade continue to grow, models of organisations and approaches to management are beginning to merge; nevertheless it remains imperative for firms to understand and govern across the myriad of cultural differences which still exist. These differences seem most apparent in China, where managerial values are deeply rooted in archaic and powerful culture. Some authors argue that even with a certain degree of convergence between Chinese and Western cultures, such convergence does have its restrictions.
The Hofstede model of national culture differences, based on research carried out in the early seventies, is the first major study to receive worldwide attention. This influential model of cultural traits identifies five dimensions of culture that help to explain how and why people from various cultures behave as they do. According to Hofstede (1997) culture is Ù[ collective programming of the mind? This referring to a set of assumptions, beliefs, values and practices that a group of people has condoned as a result of the history of their engagements with one another and their environment over time. In this study, culture refers to a set of core values and behavioural patterns people have due to socialisation to a certain culture. The author̼ theoretical framework will be applied to compare differing management practices in China and the West. The five measurements of culture identified by the author are:
(1) power distance ( measured from small to large);
(2) collectivism versus individualism;
(3) femininity versus masculinity
(4) uncertainty avoidance ( from weak to strong)
(5) short term versus short term
The first national culture dimension to be identified is the measurement of power distance. This can be defined as the degree of inequality among people built upon what the population of that country accepts as normal. In countries with high power distance like China, individuals are more likely to accept differences in authority or inequality. Management are inclined to be dictatorial, making autocratic and paternalistic decisions, with their subordinates remaining faithful and obedient to them at all times. Often these societies or institutions possess business structures that are typified by close control over all operations. Organisation structures tend to be tall hierarchies with numerous levels within a formal setting. One of the reasons that can be identified for the acceptance of this type of authority in China is derived from thousands of years of political centralisation, which tends to result in a tradition of obedience.
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Triandis, H., & Wasti, S. (2008). Culture. In D. Stone, & E. Stone-Romeo, The influence of culture on human resource management processes and practices (pp. 1-24). Psychology Press
Fogel, G. K. (n.d.). BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN CHINA: ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL FACTORS. Retrieved from http://business.usi.edu/abe/2010/Fogel-2010.pdf
As one can see, The United States and Canada have very similar values when depicting Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture. But most importantly, it is fair to claim that the management culture of Canada is mostly effected by individualism and indulgence. With these two dimension greatly influencing the work place, one will find that individuals of management are more likely to favor their own values and pursue their beliefs for short-term satisfaction and success.
There are many culture researchers that have explain culture and how individuals behaves in an organisation, we have Porter & co. (1975), George Murdock (1940), Clyde Kluckhohn (1952) etc. but this report shall be mostly based on the Geert Hofstede (1980) cultural dimension. He investigated the interactions between national and organisational cultures using the IBM workers as a case study and came out with four dimensions and later added two more at different times. They are:
Cultural Differences in Hofstede’s Six Dimensions According to Professor Geert Hofstede, dimensionalizing a culture requires a complex analysis of a multitude of categories including differing nations, regions, ethnic groups, religions, organizations, and genders. Hofstede defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another". Throughout his many years of contribution as a social scientist, he has conducted arguably the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture, leading to the establishment of the Six Dimensions of National Culture. From this research model, the dimensions of Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term Orientation, and Indulgence are defined according to their implication on individual countries, which when comparatively examined provide a broad understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to the workplace. Identification and Definition of the Six Dimensions In initially defining each of Hofstede's dimensions, a foundational understanding of the six categories is established, from which a greater understanding of different cultures can be built off of.
In the article, Cultural constraints in management theories, Geert Hofstede examines business management around the globe from a cultural perspective. He explains how he believes there are no universal practices when it comes to management and offers examples from the US, Germany, France, Japan, Holland, China and Russia. He demonstrates how business management theories and practices are very much subject to cultural norms and values and by understanding these differences, it can give managers an advantage in global business practices.
Comparison of HR Practices and Employment Relations Philosophies in China and Taiwan Introduction In the face of ever-increasing globalization, both China and Taiwan have now joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO); a more open market economy and closer integration with the global economic order appears to be inevitable for both countries (Magarinos et al. 2002). Human Resource Management (HRM) is one of the critical tools for improving productivity and competitiveness at the grass-roots level (Poole 1997). This Essays aims to identify and compare the current HRM systems and practices at different types of enterprises in both China and Taiwan respectively (Zhu and Warner 2000), to evaluate their performance in this domain, as well as to illustrate the implications of the inter-relationship between social norms/ environment and the transformation of HRM in both economies. The outcome of this comparison may be meaningful in terms of understanding the theoretical arguments about the trend of HRM development towards a ‘convergent’ or ‘divergent’ model within the global production and economic systems of our time (Warner 2002) or possibly a hybrid ‘cross-vergent’ phenomenon where national cultural systems are blended with broader economic ideologies .
Meanwhile, Hofstede stating that national culture distinguishes the members of one group from another thought having a unique characteristic. Basically human resource strategies and policies would differ in the manner of management at which they achieve their objectives in the global aspect varying from country to country. Culture has its own history, therefore it tends to have an effect towards certain views HRM may frown upon and at the same time undiscovered opportunities from HRM practises. The national culture in countries most especially developing countries, tend to have a positive effect on achieving an organisations objective. But at the same time shows a dual effect on HRM policies. These policies are implemented towards an organisations strategy t...
Hofstede, G. (1993) ‘Cultural constrains in management theories,’ in Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 81-93.
Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). International Management: Strategy and Culture in the Emerging
Out of the informal institutions, culture probably is the most frequently looked at when doing global business. Culture refers to people behavior, and beliefs which differ from each other group. Four major manifestations of culture are language, religion, social structure, and education. It is seen that various cultures are based out of the grouping of any of those four components. For example, it is seen that that Chinese culture is different from Russian culture. Also, cultures are different based on social stratification and mobility. Next section discussion on how cultures systematically differ from each
Tylor has pointed out that "culture is complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society". According to this definition, it is easy to know that every nation has different cultural preferences, national tastes and value standards. These factors impact on every part of management in multinat...
To analyze a national culture, Hofstede identified four dimensions which represents differently among national cultures, including individualism versus collectivism, large or small power distance, strong or weak uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity. The first dimensions ‘individualism versus collectivism’ is on the question whether people likely to live alone or belong to a knitted network, which later on shown that wealthy countries are more individualist while poor and developing countries are more collectivist. It is noticeable that Japan, India, Austria and Spain are in the middle. The second dimension ‘Power distance’ defines how society deals with the inequality. However, it is clear that no countries could reach completely equality as human mind still perpetuate existing inequalities. At organizational level, power distance dimension describes the degree of centralization of authority and the degree of autocratic leadership; it also shows a close relationship between power