National Cultures: China and Australia - Case Study Example

National cultures Name xxxx Course xxxx Lecturer xxxx Date xxxx Contents xxxx 1 Contents 2 Purpose 4 Introduction 4 National cultures: China and Australia 5 Conclusions 13 References 14 Appendices 15 Appendix 1: country economic profile (Source- OECD) 15 Appendix II: Summary of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 16 Executive summary Cross cultural management has gained popularity with a need to respond to globalization and cross border tendencies. This paper evaluates and compares two national cultures and the way these cultures may impact organizational behaviour. It juxtaposes Australian and Chinese cultures using Hofstede’s dimension of national cultures. Essentially, these cultures differ distinctly over aspects such as individualism, masculinity, power distance and long-term orientedness. There are no distinct lines over uncertainty avoidance, although china scores higher than Australia. Chinese demonstrate effects of Confucianism whereas Australia demonstrates western nations’ typology. Purpose The purpose of this research is to establish the national cultures of two selected countries: Australia and China and thus hypothesize how these cultures would be reflected in organizations. It enables managers to define appropriate strategies that are responsive to individual cultures and thus demonstrate cross-culture management competencies. It uses Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to establish how Australian and Chinese workers would relate, compare and interact towards organizational goals; and how global managers may control and harness the potential in these cultures as a competitive advantage. It intends to identify how these cultures compare with reference to power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and individualism/collectivism and long I term/short term orientations. Introduction We are living and in the current world that is globalized with forces that are beyond the control of individuals and ever constant uncertainties and change. Along with these elements, globalization is characterised by increased interconnectedness. The definition of globalization entails mention of extensive integration of markets, economies, technology, and capital in a way that enables individuals, enterprises, national economies to interact faster and in deeper and cheaper means. This has increased the spectra of business operations over “shortened” geographical, informational, technological, social and cultural distances. Specifically, this has prominent influence on human resource management given this is the core resource upon which resource-based view (RBV) approaches are developed especially for multinational organizations. These resource elements enter the organization with dynamic constructs of cultural dimensions. The definition of organizational culture denotes the centrality of shared meanings towards organizational strategies as influenced by underlying individual and organizational assumptions, values and beliefs. It is thus imperative that global managers have an understanding of all inherent cultural components with a focus on deriving benefit from their interaction. This is a key element of success in cross-border enterprises and management. This concept has been identified in literature as cross-cultural or multicultural competence, now a requirement for all globally-oriented managers (Steers et al. 2010). Different nationalities have different underlying cultures which are reflected in all spheres of life. Literature has demonstrated how these cultures are reflected in organizational behaviour, culture, managerial behaviour, corporate culture and marketing (Steers et al. 2010; Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This was first suggested by Hofstede who developed a model with five dimensions: individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, power distance and long-term/short-term orientation. This model has been used and validated in understanding national cultures and how they are manifested in cross-culture management. Essentially, the debate is whether managers in global cross-culture enterprises should standardize their approaches citing impacts of globalization and increased integration, or adapt approaches to the diverse cultures at their exposure (Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This paper hypothesizes that being adaptive to various cultures, but within organizational standards will enhance competitive advantage. The explored Australian and Chinese cultures are used to establish this thesis. National cultures: China and Australia China and Australia are among the major economies of the Asia-Pacific with GDPs that are among the largest by the standards of the International Monetary Fund. Firstly, an overview of these nationalities presents extremes of differences with the Chinese being essentially socialists whereas Australians are western capitalists. The individualism/collectivism dimension focuses on the extent to which a culture displays integration into groups. China has been ranked high for collectivism of low individualism given its high integration of it billions and cohesiveness. This has been persistent in spite of endeavours to liberalise it economy. The Chinese strong bonds are based on the Communist rule which heavily borrows from the Confucius teachings which are dated thousands of years. These teachings ensconce harmony, loyalty and seniority. The Chinese demonstrate four key elements of their collectivism: importance of relationships, group orientation, respect for hierarchy and age, and the concept of the face- Manzi (Yui-Tim 2001). The “face” concept emphasizes the importance of relationships by developing a respectable position that is mindful of what others perceive. To this effect, literature suggests a change to Maslow’s individualism-based hierarchy of needs so that self actualization level becomes “self actualization as I serve the society” (Yui-Tim, 2001). As such, Chinese workers have a tendency to be altruistic and very team group oriented and cooperative. In addition, they will do the best to avert conflict. There is a notion that all the Chinese refer to themselves as the sons of Han. The Australian culture is an Asia-Pacific one that displays typical western liberalized systems. The Indigenous people of Australia have close links with most Asian communities, which are mostly collectivistic. However, Australia has experienced changes and liberalization that characterizes most western economies with regard to capitalism (Frazer 2003). These changes are reflected in the individualistic culture of these societies. As such, most Australians will depict loose ties between individuals with preference given to individual interests over those of groups. They have a competing mode of negotiation and interaction with others that is characterized by prominence of personal goals, personal perspective value, and prominence of personal goals over relationships and tendency to compromise only when it is vital for an agreement. This competing nature is currently depicted in the country’s labour laws and deregulation of labour markets. As such, there has been a shift in debate from collective bargaining to prominence of personal bargains and agreement and emphasis on personal performance in for rewards in organizations (Frazer 2003). Interestingly, there are differences between the indigenous Australians and the non-indigenous. Indigenous people lean towards collectivism, whereas non-Indigenous have individualistic tendencies (Diener et al 2003). The second dimension in Hofstede’s model is the power distance index. This index refers to the extent to which individual expect power to be distributed across various levels (Mooij & Hofstede 2010). High power index cultures have social classifications with stable and scarce power bases, and hierarchical operations. Every one has his or her rightful place in the society as set in a hierarchy that maintains social order. People respect the sense of authority perceiving those in higher positions as deserving to be deferred to, rather than being objected. On the contrary, low power distance index cultures believe and strive for more equality with a minimal regard for status and its symbols. The people view power in the sense of inequalities, coersion, corruption, upward mobility and dominance. This is one of the most prominent differences between the chinese and western cultures. China scores high in this index illustrating high power and wealth inequalities, respect for status and minimal challenge to those in power. This stems from its imperial tradition and the concern for ‘face’ (Reuvid & Li 2005). As such, interactions with others in an organization and in the wider society depends on ‘face’ judgement and hierarchical ranking. In addition, face determines how one relates to juniors in the up-bottom direction. The control structure of chinese organizations often reflect the top leaders’ or management personal characteristics as juniors seek to give face in the upwards direction. Age is also prominent in this culture. On the extreme end, australian culture depict a typical westerm orientation with low power distance index. Power distance index indirectly correlates with individualism index. Low power distance cultures are individualistic and with a minimal consideration of status differences. Australians, especially non-Indigenous believe in power bargain with level-play ground independence and consultations. The status and age do not determine any social categorization. They also depict high respect for achievement by which status is earned, high neurality and universalism, according to Trompenaar’s model (Steers et al 2010). For them, authority and power are not ascribed, but rather earned and anyone has the ability to improve his or her status for upward mobility. Organization also adopt similar characteristics demonstrating flatter structures, less beuracracy, decentralization of decision making and empowered individualistic and independent workers. Unlike meritocratic systems of China, Australia’s are characterized with collegial systems. Their communication and report writing is characterized by exhaustive details, which exudes a sense of independence and avoiding subjective judgements from other parties regarding insufficience. Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity dimension reflects a culture’s perception of sex role differentiation. It refers to the extent to which there is a male dominance and sex-oriented goals in which males show assertiveness whereas women females nurturance. Masculine cultures score high on the index of maximizing the male-female distinction expecting that men will demonstate assertive competition, speed, ambitiousness and material strength. Status and performance are important and so there is emphasis on symbols, brands and products to show forth. They expect women to demonstrate service and care and non-material pursuits. Feminine cultures demonstrate overlapping sex-oriented roles. The Chinese culture scores high in masculinity having the highest score among Asian countries. It has a strong preference for the boy child due to traditional values. As such, most power and responsibility positions are held by men especially in rural areas where there is high male chauvinism and women being considered as inferior (Nielsen 2008). There is a high parity between men and women. Traditional chinese women had tendencies of housewifing. This may be related to the Confucian dynamisms around which social roles and power differences are organized. Confucianism elements focus on ensuring social harmony by setting up stability enhancement structures of societal interaction and hierarchy (Reuvid & Li, 2005). The masculinity is part of the power distance characteristic of the traditional elements of the culture. Much as this culture has not fully addressed the gender parity compared to other countries, there is a change in masculinity-femininty trends especially in cities and the more developed regions. Women are taking up more leadership and economic control. The Australian culture scores high in this dimension making it to 61. As such it is a high masculinity country with emphasis and focus on competition, success and achievement. The australian culture also presents itself as having multiplicity of other cultures especially with reference to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Diener et al 2003). With respect to this, there are elements of high feminininty with close concerns for relationships and care in the competitive. The high masculinity is related to long-standing and persistent traditional myths which establish a hypermasculine national identity. Multiculturalism has been cited as threatening a popular notion of australia’s national identity characterized by an exclusive white male hegemony. An important area in which the australian masculine hegemony is demonsrated is sports. It is a key cultural element both the traditional and contemporary australia. In this, traditional forms of masculinity are developed, asserted and tested against competing contempory forms which tend to femininity. In addition, the masculine hegemony is displayed with regard to persistent gender inequalities especially amongs the rural Indigenous Australians (University of Sydney 2005). The power distance and collectivist elements of the Indigenous which are mindful of systemic social order dot the cultural fabric of these people (Diener et al 2003). The uncertainty avoidance dimension refers to the extent to which a culture demonstrates fears about the future. It demonstrates the extent of acceptance and tolerance of risk and the pursuant formulation of structured rules and situations. High uncertainty avoidance implies that individuals and systems are uncomfortable with ambiguities and risk and thus forge forward with complex rules that are informed by taboos in order to avert characteristic situations. China, similar to most oriential nations, has tendencies of high uncertainty avoidance (Nielsen 2008). It is thus characterized by an urge to work hard, influence of taboos and rules and preference for certainty and stability. The chinese mostly prefer stable jobs with minimal risks. This is also showed in their preference to work in groups in a bid to both reduce risk and spread any coming risk. Unlike their counterparts in western nations, they do not change their jobs nor places of work and living as often. In addition, the Confucian influence has had impacts on the creativity and innovation of the nation. With vast economic and human resources, China has been slow to grow economically until recently when globalization effects have set in. Her systems have been slow on change and adaptation on several key aspects such capitalism and government’s role in national economics. Management of organizational behavior in this culture often requires mechanisms such as rules, laws, customs and religion. These are well provided in the Confucian principals (Reuvid & Li, 2005). Australian national culture has lower uncertainty avoidance than China has. It has a score of 51 implying that it is fairly pragmatic. Although there is are investments on planning, Australian rank well with regard to short notice adaptations and needed change. There is a a relatively higher acceptance for innovation, competition, new ideas and change especially with respect to globalization impacts. However, Austalians score higher than some western nations such as America demonstrating risk avertion and participative decision making. As such, they have had high protection levels for the national economy from competition leading to an in-ward looking industry. Perharps this is a manifestation of the multicultural australian fabric leading to unclear lines of distinction. Finally cultural orientations provide an individual with the way of understanding and interacting with their environment and people. It is significant in the way its people develop cognitive process. As we compare the long-term and short-term orientations between the Chinese and Australian culture, there are many factors and values to implore on. Both have a peculiar historical, religious, lifestyle, political and cultural values that forms the basis of our discussion. Ultimately considerations of these will show probable outcomes in case the two cultures come into contact. The outlook will analyze how long as well as short-term orientations would contribute in constructing shared meaning, reduce communicative uncertainty and enhance the appropriate usage of technology without one culture moving to the other. Chinese morality is founded on Confucianism ideological system (Reuvid & Li, 2005). It is prominent on Chinese history and social structures. Its characteristics are manifest in the Chinese conduct and upholding on morality- face element. It is core in understanding how Chinese learn, adapt and uphold aspects of truth, perfection and kindness in life. Through communal and personal endeavor they believe that human beings are taught, improved and perfected and therefore adapts a self creation, self cultivation and orientation for maintenance of ethics and virtue. Australians on the other hand tend to uniquely hold dear and value some ‘strange’ aspects such as defeat and disrespect for authority. This is clearly shown by their celebrations such as Eureka stockade and heroes like Ricky Ponting, the only Cricket captain who lost in the Ashes. The outcome manifests Chinese rigidity of morality and Australian complacency in conduct which are socially accepted in each context. Religious values shape the outlook by which Chinese manage paradoxes and the spiritual worldview. As a cultural entity it is meant to show the life course, ethnic rites and shape conceptions of general existence therefore it has to be reinforced. Chinese religion has gone through transfiguration and hybridization in contact with other cultural systems but remain strong as it responds to community moods, motivations, symbolisms and practices in tackling existential and social problems (Neilsen 2008). Australians are deeply religious rooted on the love of God and neighbor and religion of peace. Religion is more of rituals, sacrificial and practical observances than a world outlook. Nature, spirits and seasonal worship are main reverence and this is done regularly in temples. Since there are different beliefs, they tolerate and co-exist with other beliefs and they don’t attach strong identification with religion. Australians cultures and are pronounced in promoting present values, and they hold less value on language, history and foods (Leung & Moore 2003). They emphasize on accommodating and can even adopt and move to other cultures. It is a social obligation to reciprocate, respect women and extremist such as homosexual. There are wide interactions among gender, religion, occupation, nationality and social classes as there are less stereotyping constraints. Unlike Australia, Chinese culture has less value on democracy, European culture such as American and English and extremist such as homosexuals. They are strongly influenced in foods, entertainment where distinctiveness, conformity and other orientation are its unique characteristics. Referent groups and networks influence an individual attitude and conduct. Conclusions This paper has analysed two national cultures: Chinese and Australian using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These dimensions describe the general overview of a national culture as reflected in organizations culture and behaviour. Any cross-cultural management situation should be informed by a clear understanding of the involved cultures. The analysed cultures do not reflect extreme differences except for two aspects: the Chinese Confucianism and Australian western culture. By these, the cultures only differ with contrasting extremes with reference to individualism/collectivism index, power distance index, and uncertainty avoidance. However, there are no clear lines for masculinity/femininity and long-term/short-term index. The cultural overlaps are linked to the effects of globalization-oriented reforms especially for the Chinese. References Diener, E., Kahneman, D. & Schwartz, N., 2003. Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Frazer, A., 2003. Individualism and Collectivism in Agreement-Making under Australian Labour Law. In: Individualism and Collectivism in Agreement-Making under Australian Labour Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 49-82. Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G., 2010. The Hofstede Model: Applications to global branding and advertising research strategy. International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), pp. 85-110. Reuvid, J. & Li, Y., 2005. Doing business with China. London: Sterling . Steers, R., Sanchez-Rude, C. & Nardon, L., 2010. Management across cultures : challenges and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yui-Tim, E., 2001. The Chinese at work: collectivism or individualism, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Business Studies. Nielsen, M. 2008. Culture Report on China. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. University of Sydney. Dept. of Anthropology, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (2005). Culture, economy and governance in Aboriginal Australia: proceedings of a workshop held at the University of Sydney, 30 November - 1 December 2004. Sydney N.S.W: University of Sydney Press. Leung, C. & Moore, S., 2003. Individual and Cultural Gender Roles: A Comparison of Anglo-Australians and Chinese in Australia. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8(21). Appendices Appendix 1: country economic profile (Source- OECD) Appendix II: Summary of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Dimension Description Individualism/ collectivism Extent to which people themselves as individuals or as members of a group Power distance extent to which members of a community view authority as being equally distributed and their perception of power in social settings degree of equality or inequality perception Uncertainty avoidance Level of tolerance for uncertainty, risk and ambiguity Masculine/feminine Extent to which success and assertiveness is valued or the extent to which relationships and care are valued Long-term/ short term Extent to which a culture entrenches a pragmatic futuristic perspective, rather that short term and conventional past perspective Read More