The Impact That Cross-Cultural Communication Has on Business - Essay Example

ESSAY: Scenario; Consider the Cross Cultural Management Implications for an Organisation from Your Home Country Setting Up A Satellite Operation in Another Country Name Instructor Institution Date Introduction International cross-cultural interaction in business has seen a steadily increasing diversity in the workforce. Such diversity demands therefore an international human resource management approach which will take into consideration of the differences that exist in the workforce and so ensure maximum productivity even in the diversity (Burke 2010, p. 25). Evidently, the reality of globalization has brought together people from different backgrounds to work in various organizations and companies (Crainer 2012, p 29). This paper, therefore, seeks to evaluate the impact that cross-cultural communication has on business especially those that have international outreach. CROSS CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION Importance of cross-cultural communication It is observed that cross-cultural management issues spring from a range of business contexts. Giving example of an individual firm, Clarke (2007, p.197) observed that the management team from a foreign parent company must seek to understand that the local workforce especially those from the host country, may require different organization structure and Human resource practices. This is essentially since it will ensure that the working personnel are not infringed on their rights as workers but are given ample room for expression. To this end, Deresky (2008, p. 47) noted that in cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), achieving the expected synergies regularly vary depending on the existent business structures and procedures that encompass both cultures in a more balanced way. Further, cross-cultural joint business ventures or alliances between two or more firms also demand a cultural compromise. This will ensure that the involved firms have a particular cultural orientation that emerges after sacrificial of the individual cultures (Fougère & Moulettes 2007, p. 12). This means therefore that the diversity of the workforce should be managed properly to ensure optimum productivity instead of leaving the differences show. Moreover, cultural sensitivity is also paramount especially if a firm needs to sell successfully to foreign consumers. In other words, it would be recommended for companies that sell to foreign customers to be culturally sensitive adaptations to various products, services, marketing and advertising (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 191). Parboteeah et al. (2005, p. 91) observed that differences that exist in particular firm’s organization and decision making practices results directly from the geographical region in which it has evolved as well as the cultural background that it encompasses. This will demand an equal understanding of the organizational structure and the HRM differences. This adequate interaction between the foreign parent company’s structures and the host company’s structures will ensure successful alliances and partnerships. Practically, as observed by Kats, et al., (2010, p. 398) the key organizational aspects that two or more firms must come to agree on include the decision-making structures and systems, the HRM policies and practices, consumer relationship structures etc. Observably, Crainer (2012, p. 67) noted that an adequate background check on the culture of a people is critical for the success of a particular business. That is to say, to a greater extent culture influences the very behaviour and preferences of the consumers. Under such a company’s product should be adapted her products to meet the very needs of the local people satisfactorily as this will validate the very presence of the company in that particular geographical setting. In this light, Velo (2012, p. 27) keenly noted that any alteration in advertising, marketing, product or service features, after-sales support, technical backup, documentation, etc., will be partly guided by cultural differences. Sensitivity to this cultural difference is pivotal in noting the consumers’ preferences and tastes (Fougère & Moulettes 2007, p. 32). Evidently, effective communication with people of different cultures might be quite challenging. As noted by Deresky (2008, p. 68) culture presents a people of different ways of thinking, ways of seeing, hearing and interpreting the world. This why the same words can mean different things to people of different cultures even when they talk the ‘same’ language. As such when the languages are different, and the translation can be used in order to communicate and this increases potential chance of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. According to Singh (2012, p. 34) there are three ways in which culture interferes with effective cross-cultural communication and understanding. Firstly, there are cognitive constraints that are but frames of reference or worldviews that provide a backdrop upon which all new information is compared. Secondly there are behaviour constraints that mainly indicate that each “particular culture has its rules about proper behaviour that affect verbal and nonverbal communication” (Kirkman et al., 2006, p. 66). Thirdly, emotional constraints which indicate that different cultures regulate their emotional display differently. All these cross-cultural aspects often lead to the communication b problem especially when not taken into adequate consideration (Parboteeah et al. 2005, p. 97). To this end Fougère and Moulettes (2007, p. 32) observed that for business leaders, however, intercultural savvy is considered vitally important, not simply because they have to deal with globalization but also because the workforce within their national borders is growing more and more diverse. 1. CULTURE AS A HIDDEN DIMENSION-HALL In the study of intercultural communication, E.T. Hall is envisioned as a pioneer. He developed his preliminary argumentative position after years of personal observation of the animal kingdom, his life among the various cultures as well as specializing in anthropology (1945) (Hall 1976, p. 21.) Hall laid strong emphasis on the provision of a workable tool that would allow for the classification and appraisal of other cultures so that an individual could easily clarify his position of life before extending to other cultures (Crainer 2012, p 69). One of the unique contribution of Hall in his cultural theory is that, to him culture is but communication. In other words, a cording to Hall culture communicates. Culture, he observed is everywhere but since it is so innate it cannot be recognized easily not until one venture elsewhere. As such the most differing aspect of culture are those that Hall refer to as out-of-awareness features that are the hidden dimension of the new culture (Burke 2010, p. 35). He observed that culture often hides much more than it reveals even to its participants. Accordingly the bulk of a culture is often submerged like an iceberg leaving a visible portion afloat. Each of these portions carries with it, a message that can be read in one was by the insider and in another way by an outsider (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 195). In this way culture communicates. Hall breaks culture into two broad components that he referred to as Set Theory. The pervasive set is that which is considered noticeable. This is the gradient of the iceberg that constitutes the dressing code, language, seating arrangement or the greeting protocol. The second half of the Set Theory is what is referred to as the illusive set, or the phantom component of culture (Hall 1976, p. 23). This illusive set consist of the stress of words, pitch or tone, worldview, gender roles or status roles. Set theory according to Hall can be a considerable to for a cultural observer who would like to have a complete picture of a particular culture. In reference to cross-cultural communication, Hall developed Primary Message System (PMS) which is present in every culture. The dimensions of PMS include interaction, association, subsistence, bisexuality, territoriality, temporality, learning, play, defense and exploitation (Peterson 2008, p. 62). For an effective cross-cultural communication then these outlined component of PMS must work together (Huijser 2006, p.47). Most importantly these systems are played at different levels in a particular society, namely the formal, informal and technical. These levels according to Hall are called the major triad (Shi & Wang 2011, p. 87). Further, it would be of great importance to mention in passing the various cultural distinctions that Hall noted. Chronemics or the use of time differs from one community to another. According to Hall, time is considered a language of its own. Observably, different time usage brings with it different messages tied with it and so communicates differing messages to the observer or participant of the particular culture (Crainer 2012, p 78; Singh 2012, p. 37). Some culture have an acute orientation toward the past where events stack up and so weigh heavily on the present activities, while in other cultures time is viewed as linear, future oriented and is segmented, scheduled and manageable. As such adequate understanding and use of time by a particular community is key to cultural communication. Secondly, proxemics or use of space is also another distinctive feature of culture (Singh 2012, p. 38). Hall is known to have got a strong interaction with animals that acted as the springboard for his study of human cultural distinctions. Hall had argued that animals use their sense to gain an understanding of their territory. As such according to him, among animals and so in humans, territoriality can be used to send a message (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 876). Within this reference to this, owing to differing cultures, different people have got different perception and usage of space. Consequently, they send messages to people outside. Additionally, Hall pointed out various features that also mark out the distinction among different cultures such as context, body movement and action chains (Peterson 2008, p. 62). Evidently, Hall’s PMS provided a primary framework for the modern day systematic study of cultural elements across wide and varied cultural landscapes. Critique of E.T. Hall’s Communication Theories Albeit Hall builds the foundation for the modern study of intercultural communication, his position have since become subject of much discussion. Strengths of Hall’s approach Hall’s development of Primary Message Systems was one of the most insightful ad useful contributions in the file of intercultural communication. This is because PMS, as was structured by Hall, provided a systematic and comprehensive framework from which one could observe and categorize cultural elements. This is a development as compared to the initial approaches to learning a culture. The categories provide by Hall enable students to learn about culture faster and able also to gain insight from one culture to another (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 878). Notably, the modern advanced cultural frameworks like the one developed by Donald K. Smith-Twelve Signal Systems-build on the framework provided by Hall. Further Hall had noted that culture in itself was communication (John 2014, p. 37). The various dynamics presented in the PMS such as time usage, the use of space and body movement speak a message that language cannot. As such knowing one language is but a small insignificant step in communicating in a culturally relevant setting especially among business people. Through this, Hall has armed business people with the necessary tool of sending and receiving messages that are analogous with their business intention as much as possible (Nakata 2009, p. 37). Weaknesses of Hall’s approach Unlike animals, human beings are capable of making their true intentions. They can easily hide their true feelings towards other people or a particular culture, by lying or setting them aside (Peterson 2008, p. 75). Animals are not capable of these kinds of actions. In this light, Hall missed the point when he compared humans with animals while developing the PMS. 2. THEORIES OF HOFSTEDE In reference to Hofstede’s 2001 volume Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, behaviour, institutions and Organizations across Nations, five cultural dimensions are evident (Hofstede 2001, p.17). These include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and Long-term orientation. The onset impression right from the title of his book, it is evidence that culture is to blame for the variety of phenomena at the level of nations such as underdevelopment or autocracy (Hofstede 2001, p. 73; Shi & Wang 2011, p. 98). In other words, many ideas stem right from a culture that is somehow responsible for the many things that are happening in the society. The cultural dimensions according to Hofstede are as follows: Power distance-Being modern is being equal. From a postcolonial perspective, the power distance index (PDI) is considered the most significant dimension since most of the good cultures are viewed to be on the same side (McSweeney 2012, p. 34). According to Hofstede, the low PDI is increasingly presented as the most desirable inclination for humans. The low PDI side as viewed from the Western point of view is regarded as more rational and universally fail viewpoint. This side is seen as being more technologically advanced, more legal, more modern, more equal, less centralized, less imperialistic, more questioning of the author (Hofstede & Minkov 2010, p. 89). Further, this side is characterized by more social mobility, have a bigger middle class, better wealth distribution, and so on. Notably, this division by Hofstede of the world in low PDI (modern and economically developed part) versus high PDI (a traditional underdeveloped part) is because those regions are inhabited by ‘modern’ versus ‘traditional’ people. In this regard, Hofstede claim that high-PDI countries are less performant scientifically as compared to the low-PDI countries (Hofstede 2010, p. 1345). Allegedly, the high PDI found in most countries can be attributed to the colonization which these countries had gone through, although no enough evidence is available to substantiate the claim (John 2014, p. 43). Uncertainty avoidance: Being modern is being flexible This dimension expresses to what extent members of a society can feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Fundamentally, how does a particular community able to deal with the fact that the future can never be known? That is should the society try to control the future or just let it happen and take its natural course (McSweeney 2012, p.78). According to Hofstede, countries that exhibit strong Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) often tend to maintain rigid codes of beliefs and behaviours, and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas (Shi & Wang 2011, p. 82). On the other side, countries with weak UAI often maintain a more flexible and more peaceful outlook in which practice counts more than doctrines. Individualism: Being modern is being individualistic Individualism which is the higher side of this dimension can be described as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families (Hofstede & Minkov 2010, p. 99). On the other side, collectivism, which is the opposite of individualism, can be defined as a preference for a tightly-knit framework in which society in which individuals expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (McSweeney 2012, p.79). In this regard, considering the position of a particular community/society on this dimension is directly reflected on whether the people’s self-image is defined in terms of either “I” or “we.” Masculinity: Can feminine values be modern after all? In his construction of this dimension, Hofstede proceeded from the presumption that the duality of the sexes is fundamental fact with which different societies cope in different ways (McSweeney 2012, p.79). In this light, this dimension refers to the dominant sex role pattern in the vast majority of both the traditional and modern societies, i.e. that of male competitiveness and assertiveness and the female modesty and nurturance (Qamar, et al., 2013, p, 1227). The masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success (Nakata 2009, p. 68). Notably, society is largely competitive in nature. On the other hand, femininity represents a strong preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. This kind of society is mainly consensus-oriented in nature. Brewer and Venaik (2011, p. 437) observed that in the business context, however, Masculinity versus Femininity is related to as “strict versus gender” cultures. One problem that Hofstede noticed is that the dominating patterns in a particular society are also likely to be transmitted to other institutions. For example, the goal of the organization can affect the distribution of labour over the sexes. Evidently, this dimension is considered the least meaningful of all the dimensions postulated by Hofstede, and it has been criticized a lot over the years (Hofstede & Minkov 2010, p. 112). One of the significant criticisms has been that this dimension has been blamed for being vague and contradictory. Long-Term Orientation: Accounting for unexpected success. Evidently, every society has to maintain some significant links with its past while dealing with the challenges of the present and the future (Brewer & Venaik 2011, p. 77). Different societies thus prioritize these two existential goals differently. As such communities that score the least on this dimension prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with many suspicions. Thus, they are slow to embrace change in their accustomed social life (Brewer and Venaik 2011, p. 438). However, those with high scores often take a more pragmatic approach. That is to say, they encourage thrift and effort to embrace modern education as a way of preparing for the future. Some scholars have noted that this dimension within a business context would relate to (short term) normative versus (long term) pragmatic (Venaik & Brewer 2010, p. 98; Nakata 2009, p. 71; Nakata 2009, p. 57). 3. THEORIES OF TROMPENAARS In their book, “Riding the Waves of Culture” Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner reveal their ten year research findings on preferences and values of people from different cultures (John 2014, p. 76). The two authors postulated that people from different cultural backgrounds are not just randomly different from one another, but they differ in very precise and even predictable ways. This is evidently because every culture has its unique ways of thinking, its values and beliefs and different preferences are placed on a variety of different factors (Trompenaars 1996, p. 17). According to these two authors, what distinguishes people from one culture as compared to another is where the said preferences fall within the structured seven dimensions. The cultural dimension include universalism versus particularism; individualism versus communitarianism; specific versus diffuse; neutral versus emotional; achievement versus ascription; sequential time versus synchronous time; and internal direction versus outer direction (Poole 2002, p. 74; Brewer & Venaik 2011, p. 80). This model postulated by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is handy especially in businesses or multi-national organization where the management deals with people from around the world or from diverse backgrounds. This models also highlight the fact that one culture is not necessarily better or worse that another, people from different cultural backgrounds just make different choices in regards to their preferences and tastes (Huijser 2006, p.67). This, therefore, means that this model is suitable to be used as a general guide while dealing with people with diverse cultural backgrounds (Trompenaars 1996, p. 37). It would be of great importance to highlight the various characteristics of the named dimension. First, universalism versus particularism (Rules vs. Relationships): universalism is where people place the high importance of the rule of law, values and so they tend to deal with people fairly based on the stipulated laws. On the other side, particularism is where people believe that each circumstance and each relationship dictates the very rules by which those people live. Second, we have Individualism versus Communitarianism (the individual vs. the Group) (Venaik & Brewer 2010, p. 98). In the former people believe in personal freedom and achievement; while in the latter people believe that the group is of more importance than the individual. In this light, typical individualistic cultures include U.S., Canada, UK, etc. while the communitarian cultures include Latin-America, Africa and Japan (Velo 2012, p.46). Third, Specific versus Diffuse, which primarily is how far people get involved. Specific cultures are where people keep work and personal lives separate. Consequently, they believe that relationships do not have much of an impact on work objectives, and albeit good relationships are good, people can work without having a good relationship (Huijser 2006, p.77). In diffuse society, on the other hand, people often see an overlap between their work and personal life. They believe that good relationships are vital in meeting business objectives (Parboteeah et at., 2005, p. 102). Fourth, there is neutral versus emotional which primarily how people express their emotions. Neutral is where people make a considerable effort to control their emotions. In this regard reason often influences their very actions far more than their feelings. In these kinds of society people often do not reveal what they are thinking or how they are feeling. Such communities include Sweden, U.K, Finland, Germany, etc. While on the other side, emotional dimension kind of society, people always want to find ways of expressing their emotions even spontaneously at work (Trompenaars 1996, p. 39; Gooderham & Ogaard 2013, p. 45). Typical emotional cultures include Italy, France, and Spain. Notably, as Poole (2002, p. 67) observed in these kinds of cultures it is quite acceptable to express emotions. Fifth, there is achievement versus ascription, which mainly refers to how people view status. In achievement dimensional society, people often believe that one is what he/she does and so ones worth is based accordingly (Kirkman et al., 2006, p. 81). These kinds of cultures value performance regardless of how one is. Ascription on the other side, people believe that people should be valued for who they are. That is to say status such as power, title and position are highly valued and so they define ones behaviour (Peterson 2008, p. 79). Cultures such as Canada, U.S. Australia are typical examples of achievement society while cultures such as France, Italy, Japan and Saudi Arabia are typical example of ascription cultures. The sixth dimension of culture is Sequential Time versus Synchronous time which is how people manage their time. In sequential time cultures, people like orderly events. That is to say, they value punctuality, planning and sticking to one’s plans and staying on schedule. In these kinds of cultures, time is regarded as money, and people often don’t appreciate it when their schedule is not followed (Huijser 2006, p.79). Such societies include Germany, U.K and U.S. Synchronous time dimensional culture, people see that past, present and future as interwoven periods (Gooderham & Ogaard 2013, p. 55). They often work on several projects at once, and their plans and commitments are considerably flexible and adjustable. Such cultures include Japan, Argentina, and Mexico. Finally, we have Internal Direction dimension versus Outer Direction. This dimension typically refers to how people relate to their environment. In the former dimensional culture, people believe that they can control nature or their very environment to achieve individual goals, including how they work in teams and within organizations. Typically, therefore, such cultures include those of Israel, U.S., Australia, etc. (Huijser 2006, p.79). On the other side, Outer Direction, which is also known as having an external locus of control, is where people believe that nature or so to say their environment have constant control over them and so they must work within their environment to achieve goals (Burke 2010, p. 45). In these kinds of cultures, people often focus their actions on others and so they avoid conflicts where possible, and people always need constant reassurance that they are doing a good job. Such cultures include China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia (Kirkman et al., 2006, p. 96). CROSS CULTURAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Given the different cultural context, communication difficulties are an inevitable challenge in most workplaces. This attracts a universal approach to the type of human resource management style employed. This is because since human force is the drivers of the economic wheels in an organization, effective management will ensure that the maximum productivity of the workforce (Gooderham & Ogaard 2013, p. 1233). In this context therefore setting a satellite operation in another country will automatically demand adequate adjustment in the human resource relation and management (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 900). That is to say that the workforce would be comprised of diverse working background as well as differing cultural background. Such adequate and proper management of people from different background must, therefore, attract good understanding of the cultures involved. In other words, learning some basic about the host culture of different countries is thus critical (Qamar et al., 2013). As such when the management team meet especially in such organization where the workforce involves people that speak different languages, practice different religions and are members of a society that require understanding, the management must strive to maintain proper cultural balance and atmosphere (Wolf 2007, P. 84). This is critical because the productivity of every individual solely depends on the respect that everybody’s culture is given. , patience, courtesy is needed to admit and accept people as they are without subjecting them to criticism and judgment (Qamar et al., 2013, p, 1232). It is of importance to cultivate and demand understanding and tolerance especially in the workforce and the entire team as this would provide a common ground of understanding (Gooderham & Ogaard 2013, p. 1235). To this end, Huijser (2006, p.77) observed the need for cultural awareness and part of the career development within an organization. Employees should be trained to be fluid and flexible so as to embrace change and differences in their workplaces. The fore mentioned models conceptualizes and brings into picture differing aspects that make cultures differ and so adequate understanding of these cultures would be easier with these aspects n mind. In this light, Kats, et al., (2010, p. 405) recommends cross-cultural training where people would be taught to be alert they are constantly involved in the process of assigning meaning to the actions and objects they observe. The use of the models will enable one understand the differences that exists in the various cultures and so limit chances of stereotyping culture in the individuals (Qamar et al.,2013, p,1231). More than ever, cross-cultural management demand that one must move away from the confines of one’s culture and less embrace a more universalized culture. That is to say, one should not be limited by one’s cultural way of thinking especially when one is involved in the management of a multi-national workforce (Wolf 2007, p. 86). Such universal human resource management approach would somehow bring to live confidence especially among those employees who are discriminated against owing to their minority and cultural backgrounds since it would offer them a balanced workforce environment. Bibliography Brewer, P, & Venaik, S 2011, Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 436-445 Burke, R 2010, Cross-cultural management, Bingley, UK: Emerald. Clarke, M 2007, Evaluating employability during career transition. Journal of Management and Organization, 13(3), 196-211. Retrieved from Crainer, S 2012, The ultimate book of business gurus: 110 thinkers who really made a difference, AMACOM, New York. Deresky, H 2008, International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures Text and Cases. Sixth ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Fougère , M & Moulettes , A 2007 , The Construction of the Modern West and the Backward Rest : Studying the Discourse of Hofstedes Cultures Consequences Journal of Multicultural Discourses , vol 2 , no. 1 , pp. 1-19. Gooderham, P., & Ogaard, B 2013, International Management: Theory and practice. Cengage Learning, New York. Hall, E T 1976, Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY Hofstede, G 2010, The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1339-1346. Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G, Minkov, M 2010, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill USA, New York. Huijser, M 2006, The cultural advantage a new model for succeeding with global teams. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Javidan, M, House, R J, Dorfman, P W., Hanges, P J., & Sully, d L 2006, Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBEs and Hofstedes approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897- 914. John W 2014, Introduction to global business: Understanding the International, Cengage Learning, New York. Kats, M. M., van Emmerick, I. J., Blenkinsopp, J., & Khapova, S. N. (2010). Exploring the associations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices. Career Development International Journal, 15(4), 401-418. Kirkman, B L, Lowe, KB, & Gibson, C B 2006, A quarter century of cultures consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstedes cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285- 320. Magnusson, P, Wilson, R, Zdravkovic, S, Joyce, X Z., & Westjohn, S A 2008, Breaking through the cultural clutter. International Marketing Review, 25(2), 183- 201. McSweeney, B. (2012). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89- 118. Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstedes doctrine. Cross Cultural Management, 18(1), 10-20. Nakata, C 2009, Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global marketing and management, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke England. Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviours? A focus on the GLOBE national culture scheme. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM, 5(2), 123- 138. Peterson, M 2008, Foundations of Cross Cultural Management, SAGE, Los Angeles. Poole, M 2002, Human resource management: Critical perspectives on business and management, Routledge, London. Qamar, A., Muneer, S., Jusoh, A., &Idris, H 2013, The relationship between organizational conduct and national culture. Journal of Economics and Behavioural Studies, 5(2), 82-88. Shi, X., & Wang, J 2011, Interpreting Hofstede model and GLOBE model: Which way to go for cross-cultural research? International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93- 99. Singh, N 2012, Eastern and cross-cultural management (Rev. ed.). Springer, New Delhi. Trompenaars, F 1996, Riding the waves of culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited, London. Velo, V 2012, Cross-cultural Management, Business Expert Press, New York. Venaik, S, & Brewer, P 2010, Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1294-1315. Wolf, J 2007, International Human Resource and Cross Cultural Management, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Read More