Effective Cross-Cultural Communication - Assignment Example

Discuss the importance (or otherwise) of developing and then using cultural stereotypes to enhance, or make more effective cross cultural communication in an international business. The integration of the globalisation phenomenon into business with the increased movement of capital and commodities has had a significant impact on international business strategy (Croucher, 2004). The most common definition of globalisation encompasses the political and cultural and social economic aspects of regional and local territories, which have become interconnected via contemporary global methods of information exchange (Croucher, 2004). Furthermore, it is submitted that integration of globalisation in international business has primarily impacted business strategy. As such, Bannon and Mattock highlight the importance of effective cross-cultural communication and posit that “whatever deal you are hoping to strike, it will be influenced by the background culture, company style and individual character of your partner” (2003:2). With regard to culture, Bannon and Mattock argue that “your business partner’s background culture – will affect his approach to every decision (2003:2). This in turn has fuelled debate regarding appropriate models of cross-cultural communication as part of international business strategy and in particular the incorporation of cultural stereotypes as a mode of cross cultural communication. The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate the use of cultural stereotypes to enhance effective cross cultural communication and consider whether such stereotypes remain relevant within the contemporary globalisation of business paradigm. To this end, this paper will evaluate the work of leading anthropologists Hall and Hofstede and their models of cultural communication. If we consider the leading models pertaining to cross cultural communication, Hofstede’s model of cross cultural communication extrapolates the following central tenets fundamental to communication in international business: 1) Power orientation- with regard to power orientation, Hofstede posits that this refers to the manner in which people in a culture defer to legitimate and pre-existing cultural norms. To this end, Hofstede highlights that the power orientation element “is the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”. ; 2) Uncertainty avoidance – the extent to which culture influences the completion of a task; 3) Individualism/collectivism – the extent to which culture influences individuality or collective traits, which in turn fuels the use of stereotypes; 4) Masculinity –where the cultural perspective informs gender roles; 5) Context –in considering context, Hofstede argues that this refers to “the pattern of physical cues, environmental stimuli, and implicit understanding that convey between two members of the same culture” (In Thill & Bovee, 2007:70). 6) Time orientation – Hofstede posits that a culture’s attitudes towards time is distinctively influenced by cultural norms; and 7) Authority – which in turn correlates to familial, societal and organisational authority structures. Moreover, in 1967 Hofstede undertook research into cultural indices in IBM which culminated in “culture’s consequences – international differences in work related values” and reinforced Hofstede’s argument that culture was an important variable in cross-national studies in accounting research. However Baskerville argues that this has “led to a misleading dependence on cultural indices as an explanatory variable of differences in accounting practices and behaviour” (Baskerville, 2003). Nevertheless, Hofstede’s model of culture was derived from research and whilst criticised for focusing on culture as the central factor influencing behaviour in business communication; the research remains useful in addressing how various societies behave differently. Moreover, it is submitted that Hofstede’s research remains a valuable independent variable in considering cultural behaviour. Accordingly, Hofstede’s model highlights the interrelationship of complex background factors influencing nuances in culture, which is imperative to address in international business strategy. For example, if we consider this contextually, cultural issues will clearly impact management styles and mindset of parties in cross-cultural business negotiations. For example, in Malaysia, there is clearly evidence of the collectivist approach as extrapolated by Hofstede and therefore cross-cultural communications will inherently be influenced by the fact that every level of a corporate organisation’s hierarchy will adhere to strict Islamic values. Additionally this will interrelate with “Asian values”; which informs management leadership style and Nyland argues that “Malaysian business is not only about business and commercial activities, but also about the business of politics and culture” (Nyland, 2001: 245). This is further supported by Wardrope’s consideration of communication in Latin American business. Wardrope relies on Hofstede’s model and comments that with increasing foreign direct investment into Latin America, appropriate cross-cultural communication is important and that “given the enormous potential for increased business with Latin American constituents, it is incumbent on US entrepreneurs to approach, negotiate and maintain relationships with Latin American business professionals whose cultural backgrounds differ from their own” (Wardrope, 2005 ). However, whilst there appears to be a consensus in the need to address cultural variances in cross cultural communication in international business, there remains debate as to the role of cultural stereotypes. Bannon and Mattock comment that “stereotypes have had a pretty bad press lately…. Anthropologists, liberal thinkers and consultants on cross cultural affairs have been warning us “beware the dreaded stereotype ….. generalisations are vague and deceptive” (2003: 13). Moreover, Kemp highlights the point that “today’s world is far more complex than the last century…. Within the last nine years more than 310,000,000 people migrated daily to new points on the globe” (Kemp, 2009). To this end, it begs the question as to whether the narrow application of cultural stereotypes remains applicable in international business. Indeed, Hall’s model for cross cultural communication adopts polychronic/ monochromic dichotomy approach. Under this dichotomous paradigm, Hall posits that under the polychronic aegis, cultures handle things at one time and under the monochromic culture aegis, timetables are rigid, undertaken sequentially and compartmentalised (Bannon & Mattock, 2003: 76). Moreover, in extrapolating this distinction, Hall’s model suggests that the manner in which cultures structure their time is important on grounds that cultures continue to change. In turn Hall utilises this to point to highlight the philosophical role of intellectual independence in demonstrating that beyond culture, humans continue to develop and change as part of the evolutionary process. Accordingly, it is submitted that whilst both Hofstede and Hall’s models of cross cultural communication press the importance of acknowledging cultural differences as part of international business strategy; Hall’s model highlights the point that cultural norms will intrinsically change and continue to develop as part of the evolutionary process. This is further evidenced by the concomitant impact of globalisation and digitisation of traditional business models on cross-cultural communication. As such, it is submitted that Hall’s model underlines the point that continued adherence to cultural stereotypes is arguably dangerous in cross-cultural communication as they fail to take account of the continuing changes to cultural norms. Indeed, in interpreting Hall’s work and changes in contemporary cultural norms in international business Kemp argues that “it certainly means that it becomes more relevant to pay greater attention to cultural behaviours as they blend with organisational behaviours and cultures” (Kemp 2009). As such, it is arguable that a central problem in both models pertaining to cross-cultural communication is the struggle with formulating an encompassing definition for culture. To this end, Kemp argues that “generally speaking, culture is a shared, learned symbolic system of values, beliefs and attitudes that shape and influence perception and behaviour. Culture creates abstract mental code” (Kemp, 2009). On this basis, a converse argument is that culture is not always helpful in considering the appropriate communication process in international business and Haviland highlights the point that focusing on cultural norms in shaping communication modes in business lends itself to narrow assumptions regarding characteristics of a culture (Haviland, 2002). This in turn ignores the point that such generalisations can fail to address the actual nuances of the particular culture and the generational context within which such culture is being considered. Moreover, this arguably goes to the root of the problem in relying on cultural stereotypes in intercultural communication as culture continues to change. For example, Barber (2001) refers to the continuous changes of cultural paradigm shifts since the unification of the world after the Second World War in contrast to the contemporary global war on terror. Moreover, the manner in which people communicate and the proliferation of social networking has contributed to the increased globalisation of culture particularly with youth culture (Croucher, 2004). Therefore, it is submitted that both Hofstede and Hall’s models are important in highlighting the role of culture in shaping communication, which in turn should be considered in cross-cultural communication in international business. However, whilst adherence to cultural generalisations and stereotypes ignores the continuing changing nature of cultural norms; it is too dogmatic to assert that cultural considerations are not important in cross cultural communication in international business as the above analysis highlights the influence of cultural norms on cross cultural business communication. Nevertheless, it is submitted that whilst Hofstede’s model remains an important empirical model to demonstrate the role of culture in cross cultural communication; Hall’s model goes further in acknowledging the point that culture does not remain static and continues to evolve. As such, Hall’s model moves away from the danger of using cultural stereotypes and correlates to the need to consider the generational context of culture in cross-cultural communication. Bibliography Bannon, G. & Mattock, J. (2003). Cross-cultural communication: the essential guide to international business. Kogan Page Publishers Barber, B. (2001). Jihad v McWorld. Ballantine Press. Baskerville, R. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting Organizations and Society. Volume 28, No. 1, pp.1-14. Croucher, S. (2004). Globalization and belonging; the politics of identity in a changing world. Rowman & Littlefield. Haviland, W. (2001). The Faces of Culture. Harcourt School Kemp, F. (2009). Saving Face. Industrial Engineer, 41, 5, p.39. Nyland, C. (2001). Malaysian Business in the New Era. Edward Elgar Publishing. Thill, J. & Bovee, C. (2007) Business Communication Essentials. 4th Edition Pearson. Wardrope, W. (2005). Beyond Hofstede: Cultural Applications for Communicating with Latin American Business. Retrieved from www.businesscommunication.org accessed October 2009. Read More