Global Ethics Evaluation - Essay Example

Global Ethics Introduction Considering the complex manifestations of culture, psychologists followed by management researchers have put in significant effort and time in understanding this paradigm. As a result, several conceptual frameworks have emerged based on different perspectives and dimensions in the cross-cultural studies. From management perspective, these frameworks have been applied to various situations and scenarios in different countries to understand human behaviour, leadership and management styles, and human resources management and practices. A brief description of main studies in the field, including Hofstede’s dimensions, Triandis‘values, Trompenaars‘dimensions and House et al’s dimensions in brief has been given. Some examples from literature have been studied to understand how few of these dimensions explain human behaviour and vice versa. Much emphasis on understanding cross-cultural communication in the form of verbal and non verbal cues has been laid because these have a significant impact on establishing dialogue between different nationals. Besides these, critical aspects of these theories have also been explored. Definitions and concepts According to Kroeber and Kluckhola (1952), culture refers to patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values (cited by Karahanna, Evaristo & Srite, 2006; p.33). In simpler words, Hofstede refers to culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (2001; p.9). His study conducted on IBM employees across 50 countries concluded with 5 dimensions that impact all societies: power distance, related to the different solutions to basic problem of human inequality; uncertainty avoidance related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future; individualism versus collectivism referring to integration of individuals with groups; masculinity versus feminity related to emotional roles of males and females; long-term versus short-term orientation referring to choice of focus for people’s efforts (2001; p.29). In simpler words, life style, dressing sense, expressions, wants and preferences may be simple and different, but their links with management and culture are significant. Trompenaars‘(1993) work mostly overlaps Hofstede’s dimensions with a few dimensions added. These dimensions include universalism-particularism, individualism-communitarianism, time orientation, neutral versus affective, specific versus diffusive, achievement versus ascription and relationship to nature (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2009). Triandis (1972) later defined culture as an individual’s characteristic way of perceiving the man-made part of one’s environment. It involves the perception of rules, norms, roles, and values, is influenced by various levels of culture such as language, gender, race, religion, place of residence, and occupation, and it influences interpersonal behaviour. Triandis’ model (1986) emphasizes the role of culture on people’s social behaviour which shapes their thinking, emotions and the actions. Leaders and managers of global organisations have to be aware of this fact in order to manage effectively. In addition, Triandis also stresses on impact of culture on vertical and horizontal individualism determining individuals’ behaviours. Jandt (2009) emphasizes the work by communication scholars that has also provided ground to formation of these theories. Later, House et al. conducted extensive studies on cultural variations and their impact on societal functioning and leadership, named GLOBE emphasized the need for effective international and cross-cultural communication, collaboration, and cooperation for effective practice of management and also betterment of human condition in order to thrive in the globalizing world markets and cultures. This study emerged with 9 cultural dimensions, with most of them similar to Hofstede’s dimensions. Every study had its own merits and demerits, mostly in terms of applicability, scope, measurement process and vagueness/exclusiveness. However, these studies are useful to a large extent in understanding cultural manifestations of organisational behaviour and management styles. Evidences from theory: While Hofstede’s project concluded in different dimensions of national culture that operate in different countries, it also revealed many cross national similarities within the realm of same dimensions. Trompenaars‘work exclusively focused on impact of culture on business and management. Most of the studies conducted after Hofstede’s have adopted Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as the grounding principles to move ahead in research. From management perspective, Hofstede’s studies were effective to establish and understand the relationship between national culture and aspects of corporate culture such as employee motivation, management styles, and organisational structure of companies in different countries. For instance, the power distance dimension provides substantial evidence of cultural impact on management style and organisational behaviour when applied to specific Western countries in comparison with some Eastern cultures; in Hofstede’s studies power distance in U.S and Japan was much lesser than in Chinese organisations. Various studies have revealed significant differences in managerial attitudes, values, behaviours, and efficacies across various Asian countries. Kinesics or gestures has been of great significance for researchers in the communication field. For example, nonverbal communication expressed in the form of different gestures, tone, body language etc have different meaning in different countries. In high-context cultures, non verbal communication is used to refer to intentional message to be communicated. Burgoon et al. (1988) define non verbal communication as those actions and attributes of humans that have socially shared meaning, are intentionally sent or interpreted as intentional, are consciously sent or consciously received, and have the potential for feedback from the receiver (cited by Jandt, 2009; p.107). Another aspect of the nonverbal communication is gestures such as showing agreement, greeting others, pointing someone, eye contact etc. Literature indicates various ways of showing these gestures by different nationals. Lack of awareness of these gestures can cause significant misinterpretation of intention, feeling humiliated or even misunderstanding. The reason being, some gestures that are considered good/positive in certain cultures have exactly opposite meaning in others. For example, eye contact is considered as courageous and trustworthy in some cultures, while it is also considered as rude. However, existence of sub-cultural differences has also been confirmed in many studies, but not much evidence has been collected to determine impact of sub-cultural differences on the management style of specific nation. Also, research related to culture on communication and management does not include factors such as developmental levels of leaders, educational background, experience etc. Impact of these factors on management style cannot be denied. Triandis‘model that focuses highly on individualism and collectivism excludes significant values concealed within these dimensions, like equality, social justice, fairness etc (Schwartz, 1992). In their study, Yeganeh, Su and Sauers (2009) emphasized that applicability of Hofstede’s dimensions is limited to measuring and analyzing intensity of cultural values, but cannot provide substantial understanding as to which dimension are central to organisational behaviour. The two important implications and patterns of variations present in the differences of culture are goal setting and reward systems with respect to individual versus team-wide or organisation-wide, and communications with respect to gestures, eye contact and body language in high-context cultures versus precision with words in low-context cultures. Triandis’ work lacks measurement potential, and hence cannot be incorporated conveniently in empirical research. However, considering the richness of cultural notions, Triandis’ framework can be used in acquiring a broad understanding of the effects of cultural differences on organisational behaviour and human resource management. Moreover, the concept of culture is perceived from other aspects like shared values, problem solving and all-encompassing forms. Straub et al. (2002) argue that cultural influence on management and behaviour cannot be theorized or explained based upon these studies because they are limited to macro-level behaviour, and do not contain justification of individual behaviour. Also, individual values are shaped by membership with other professional, organisational, ethnic, religious and various other social groups. Cultural conditioning also exists in most of these theories and dimensions; hence their applicability across different cultures cannot be unbiased. Various dimensions proposed by different researchers have superficially explained the verbal and nonverbal parts of communication with respect to general behaviour, although these aspects can significantly explain how it impacts management style and business communication. Practical examples: Whatever be the views of critiques, some of these theories have been extremely helpful in understanding the impact of national cultures on business and its management. Like, for example, Hofstede and Usunier (2003) pointed at the necessity for business negotiators to understand and even share national culture and values of their countries in order to gain trust and to establish their business. These dimensions also aid in understanding the professional cultures that exist in international organisations, and include common symbols and expressions that can be understood by all members involved in any discussion/negotiation process. Dialogue-creation is extremely important for communication to be meaningful, and without accepting cultural differences, cross-cultural dialogue cannot be initiated (Stephani, 2006). For this, understanding the cultural background and verbal and nonverbal cues is required. For instance, low-context cultures like the Americans or the British, focus is laid on what is being said, and communication is expected to be in detail, whereas in high-context cultures like Asian countries, communication is imprecise, nonverbal expressions such as body language, facial gestures and tone gets much attention. Jandt (2009) has quoted numerous examples from Morris et al.’s work in this regard. For example, thumbs-up means ‘okay’ in the United States; in Greece and Sardinia it means ‘getting stuffed’; in Australia, Iran and Nigeria, it is considered obscene. Many such differences have been found with respect to other gestures using fingers. Nodding in agreement gesture also has different meanings. Although nodding up-down indicates a ‘yes’ and side-to-side movement indicates ‘no’ in most cultures, in some countries like Albania, Bulgaria, parts of Greece, Turkey, Iran, these gestures are reversed. In Ceylon, a nod indicates ‘yes’ whereas sideways movement indicates ‘agreement.’ Jandt (2009) also mentions that the way people greet each other has a great significance in communication due to the intention attached. In United States, people greet each other with a firm handshake and eye contact; in France, firm handshake is considered rude. In India, greeting with palms together is the traditional way. In Japan, they greet with a bow. Eye contact is another significant gesture that has opposing meanings in different regions. Arabs, Latin Americans and Europeans tend to maintain strong eye contact while conversing, while Indians, Pakistanis and Americans maintain peripheral eye contact. As a mark of respect, some cultures do not maintain eye contact; however this may be treated as shy, indifferent, or preoccupied in other cultures. Conclusions and final comments In conclusion, human behaviour shaped by cultural aspects impacts business and management. Theory and research related to culture and management have provided extensive learning about these impacts in various ways, which can be used to understand management styles and human behaviour in different countries. Understanding verbal and nonverbal cues, gestures, and body language is extremely important to maintain communication in cross-cultural settings. Globalization has helped in surfacing these differences and also minimized them to a significant extent. However, culture being dynamic phenomenon, cannot be changed or protected completely. Hence, effective management can be possible through awareness of cultural differences, which can be obtained on the bases of various dimensions proposed in these theories. Bibliography Ahlstrom, D and Bruton, G.D. (2009). International Management: Strategy and Culture in the Emerging World. Ohio, U.S.A: Cengage Learning. Accessed from, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HqUZ-aeWENIC&pg=PA56&dq=trompenaars+7+dimensions&as_brr=3&cd=4#v=onepage&q=trompenaars%207%20dimensions&f=false Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organisations across nations. California: Sage. Hofstede, G and Usunier C, J 2003. Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture and their influence on International Business Negotiations. In Ghauri, P (Ed.) and Usunier C, J (Ed.) International Business Negotiations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. (Ch.6. pp:137-154). Accessed from, http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YdLV7JpM-90C&oi=fnd&pg=PA137&dq=%22Hofstede%22+%22Hofstede%E2%80%99s+dimensions+of+culture+and+their+influence+...%22+&ots=bwEITbrkKX&sig=VkEbmYwEQudRkvHkYimIL5LaAto#PPA137,M1 House et al. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organisations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. London: SAGE. Jandt, F.E. 2009. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. 6th ed. London: SAGE. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3nqUSY2C4wsC&pg=PA281&dq=global+ethics+cultural+communication+tolerance+openmindedness&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Karahanna, E, Evaristo, J.R, and Srite, M. Levels of Culture and Individual Behaviour: An Integrative Perspective. In Hunter, G and Tan, F.B’s Advanced topics in global information management. London: Idea Group Inc. (Ch.2,pp: 30-50). Accessed from http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lFxoxlsUVvcC&pg=PA33&dq=culture+is+defined+as+management&cd=2#v=onepage&q=culture%20is%20defined%20as%20management&f=false Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the structure and content of values.Theoretical Advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M.P’s (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Orlando: Academic Press. (Ch.1, pp:1-65). Accessed from, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PeP5J08GZ1cC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Rowley+Lewis+HRM&source=web&ots=E-_fkOcb27&sig=HArEMp2JX6Mgc2KI69cAiaImH2E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA19,M1 Straub et al. 2002. Toward a Theory-Based Measurement of Culure. In Szewczak, E and Snodgrass, C’s Human factors in information systems. London: Idea Group Inc (IGI). (Ch.6, pp: 61-82). Accessed from, http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p_Wh-r3BSlMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=critical+review+cultural+influence+business+management+Hofstede&ots=_9U-mA2mFA&sig=_IXGqfke3rZcbXRNo1vKBVx_00g#v=onepage&q&f=false Stephani, M.T. 2006. Comparative ethics in a global age. Washington DC: CRVP. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QRZ-P7VOqAQC&pg=PT126&dq=global+ethics+cultural+communication&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=global%20ethics%20cultural%20communication&f=false Yeganeh, H, Su, Z and Sauers, D. 2009. The Applicability Of Widely Employed Frameworks In Cross-Cultural Management Research. Journal Of Academic Research In Economics, 1(1), pp: 1-24. Read More