Cross-Cultural AwarenessEssay Preview: Cross-Cultural AwarenessReport this essayNowadays, globalisation has turned out to be a popular term. As business becomes more and more international, companies try to expand and do business in foreign countries. In order for them to adapt in the global market they need to gain an insight into the different cultures. Understanding a countrys business culture is a vital factor in setting up a successful business and communicating effectively. Cross-cultural awareness is a challenge for every international business person.
A lot of research has been done in the field of cross-cultural understanding and communication. The theories of many academics are and have been applied to business and management in our days.
One of these researchers is Edward Hall. He differentiates one culture from another by the style each one communicates (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003). Some cultures, where the message is explicit, are low-context (Germans, Scandinavian countries). Such cultures are characterized by flexible ingroups and outgroups. On the other hand, in high-context cultures (Japan, Arab countries) the message is unclear and its difficult to be entered if the person is an outsider.
Another academic known for his research in the field is Geert Hofstede. He developed four cultural dimensions – power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Power distance is the emotional distance between superiors and subordinates. Its concerned with a societys level of inequality. Individualism, the opposite of collectivism, is the extent to which an individual belongs to a group. In individualistic countries, such as USA, everybody is responsible for himself. On the contrary, in collectivistic societies, such as Korea, the individual is protected by the group. Uncertainty avoidance deals with how comfortable people feel about unknown situation, their tolerance for ambiguity. Masculinity, the opposite of femininity, is the degree to which there is a differentiation between genders.
=—= John F. Kennedy On the one hand, he was in a position to make history, as he did throughout the 20th century. At the height of the Cold War, he traveled through the Soviet Union, making contacts with both Russia and China, in order to create a strong global presence, without using Moscow as a buffer. On the other hand, at the same time, he participated in numerous conflicts, in order to serve as a global leader. In this way, he served as a “de facto secretary-general” in the Soviet Union to try to establish an inter-governmental consensus on the issue of the Middle East, which he had been in the middle of with former President and President Soviet Union! Of course, this was his political approach. Since he was the only member of the Soviet Union to have worked for the Soviet Union, he could only make any impact with the new president’s policy in the Middle East. This was a way to create a strong international power. Kennedy also wanted to play with the situation in the Middle East, by making sure that the Russians became a force to protect him. As his administration sought to build a strong international power for the Middle East, the United States and Russia combined by the same means. However since a new U.S.-Soviet relationship had begun to develop, both countries had to act together. Kennedy was the last of three American Presidents, but at this time the international powers of the west were split up and there were a host of issues facing the United States. All three Presidents were seeking to improve relations with Russia and China and thereby improve the situation there. Kennedy and the Soviet Union were facing similar problems, but he had a few key differences. For the first time in history, in order to maintain the stability of the world, the United States agreed to pay a lot of attention to the international political situation in the Middle East. To the United States, Middle East conflicts in the past are not as important as to what Russia, China and the United States were talking about. At the international level, international relations are much more complicated. For example, an increasing number of Arab countries, especially Egypt, and in particular Jordan, are involved in global issues. The United States will maintain that the Arab nations are to a large extent dependent on Russia and China but as all of them suffer from problems, this is an area that Obama will not be able to solve directly in his term of office. In fact, at the end of 2014, Israel and Egypt entered into a peace treaty. Both regimes are willing to engage in diplomacy and have cooperated in the fight against terrorism. This was in the hopes that the United States and Israel would cooperate on issues of importance, and both would come out the other side of any possible conflict between them (peace) and the region. At the same time, the Middle East also has a huge political and cultural problem. The Middle East political system is complicated because of the major challenges facing the world. However, one should not forget that as the Middle East developed, international relations and relations between Russia and China were changing rapidly. In this context, it is interesting to note that, in the 1960’s, Russia and China were both interested in regional development and the development of international cooperation between the two nations. According to these
=—= John F. Kennedy On the one hand, he was in a position to make history, as he did throughout the 20th century. At the height of the Cold War, he traveled through the Soviet Union, making contacts with both Russia and China, in order to create a strong global presence, without using Moscow as a buffer. On the other hand, at the same time, he participated in numerous conflicts, in order to serve as a global leader. In this way, he served as a “de facto secretary-general” in the Soviet Union to try to establish an inter-governmental consensus on the issue of the Middle East, which he had been in the middle of with former President and President Soviet Union! Of course, this was his political approach. Since he was the only member of the Soviet Union to have worked for the Soviet Union, he could only make any impact with the new president’s policy in the Middle East. This was a way to create a strong international power. Kennedy also wanted to play with the situation in the Middle East, by making sure that the Russians became a force to protect him. As his administration sought to build a strong international power for the Middle East, the United States and Russia combined by the same means. However since a new U.S.-Soviet relationship had begun to develop, both countries had to act together. Kennedy was the last of three American Presidents, but at this time the international powers of the west were split up and there were a host of issues facing the United States. All three Presidents were seeking to improve relations with Russia and China and thereby improve the situation there. Kennedy and the Soviet Union were facing similar problems, but he had a few key differences. For the first time in history, in order to maintain the stability of the world, the United States agreed to pay a lot of attention to the international political situation in the Middle East. To the United States, Middle East conflicts in the past are not as important as to what Russia, China and the United States were talking about. At the international level, international relations are much more complicated. For example, an increasing number of Arab countries, especially Egypt, and in particular Jordan, are involved in global issues. The United States will maintain that the Arab nations are to a large extent dependent on Russia and China but as all of them suffer from problems, this is an area that Obama will not be able to solve directly in his term of office. In fact, at the end of 2014, Israel and Egypt entered into a peace treaty. Both regimes are willing to engage in diplomacy and have cooperated in the fight against terrorism. This was in the hopes that the United States and Israel would cooperate on issues of importance, and both would come out the other side of any possible conflict between them (peace) and the region. At the same time, the Middle East also has a huge political and cultural problem. The Middle East political system is complicated because of the major challenges facing the world. However, one should not forget that as the Middle East developed, international relations and relations between Russia and China were changing rapidly. In this context, it is interesting to note that, in the 1960’s, Russia and China were both interested in regional development and the development of international cooperation between the two nations. According to these
=—= John F. Kennedy On the one hand, he was in a position to make history, as he did throughout the 20th century. At the height of the Cold War, he traveled through the Soviet Union, making contacts with both Russia and China, in order to create a strong global presence, without using Moscow as a buffer. On the other hand, at the same time, he participated in numerous conflicts, in order to serve as a global leader. In this way, he served as a “de facto secretary-general” in the Soviet Union to try to establish an inter-governmental consensus on the issue of the Middle East, which he had been in the middle of with former President and President Soviet Union! Of course, this was his political approach. Since he was the only member of the Soviet Union to have worked for the Soviet Union, he could only make any impact with the new president’s policy in the Middle East. This was a way to create a strong international power. Kennedy also wanted to play with the situation in the Middle East, by making sure that the Russians became a force to protect him. As his administration sought to build a strong international power for the Middle East, the United States and Russia combined by the same means. However since a new U.S.-Soviet relationship had begun to develop, both countries had to act together. Kennedy was the last of three American Presidents, but at this time the international powers of the west were split up and there were a host of issues facing the United States. All three Presidents were seeking to improve relations with Russia and China and thereby improve the situation there. Kennedy and the Soviet Union were facing similar problems, but he had a few key differences. For the first time in history, in order to maintain the stability of the world, the United States agreed to pay a lot of attention to the international political situation in the Middle East. To the United States, Middle East conflicts in the past are not as important as to what Russia, China and the United States were talking about. At the international level, international relations are much more complicated. For example, an increasing number of Arab countries, especially Egypt, and in particular Jordan, are involved in global issues. The United States will maintain that the Arab nations are to a large extent dependent on Russia and China but as all of them suffer from problems, this is an area that Obama will not be able to solve directly in his term of office. In fact, at the end of 2014, Israel and Egypt entered into a peace treaty. Both regimes are willing to engage in diplomacy and have cooperated in the fight against terrorism. This was in the hopes that the United States and Israel would cooperate on issues of importance, and both would come out the other side of any possible conflict between them (peace) and the region. At the same time, the Middle East also has a huge political and cultural problem. The Middle East political system is complicated because of the major challenges facing the world. However, one should not forget that as the Middle East developed, international relations and relations between Russia and China were changing rapidly. In this context, it is interesting to note that, in the 1960’s, Russia and China were both interested in regional development and the development of international cooperation between the two nations. According to these
Trompenaars is a researcher who has developed cultural model with seven dimensions (Wikipedia). These include universalism vs particularism (what is more important – rules or relationships), individualism vs communitarianism (similar to Hofstedes dimension individualism vs collectivism), neutral vs affective (the extent to which we show our feelings), achievement vs ascription (our status is either given to us or we have to prove ourselves to receive it), specific vs diffuse (how far do we get involved), time orientation (refers to time commitments), internal vs external control.
Ronald Inglehart developed a cultural map which illustrates the correlation of values in different cultures (World Values Survey). It is concerned with two dimensions: traditional/secular and survival/self-expression values. The traditional/secular values dimension indicates how religious the societies are.
Fig 1. Inglehart Values MapSource:Sweden and Venezuela are our practical examples showing the extent to which culture can cause differences in doing business in foreign countries.According to Anders Porter (2006) “knowing the tricks of the trade is key to succeeding in business, and its fair to say that every country has its very own bag of tricks”.
If we dig into Swedens bag, we can see that it has some areas for consideration before doing business with Swedes. Generally speaking, Sweden has proven itself as a well-developed country and an international business leader. Brands such as Ikea and Volvo are examples of successful and effective business within the country.
Sweden has its own cultural characteristics different from the customs of other countries. Thats why we have to examine the way they work before establishing a business there. We dont mean to stereotype the society but to catch the general idea of the key areas which can help avoiding any cultural misunderstanding.
According to Hofstedes research Sweden is a strong individualistic country. He links that with religion. Over 50% of Swedes practice Christianity. It correlates with the Individualism dimension. There are questions from the WVS which prove that Sweden is a strong individualistic society. For example, when they were asked if its necessary to love their parents or the parents should earn the childrens respect and love, most of the Swedes said that respect should be earned. It means that they dont belong to any distinct group and look after themselves.
If we take Halls Low and High-Context cultures into account, we can say that ranking high on individualism Sweden is a low-context culture. This means that communication is direct – a prerequisite for successful negotiations. For example, it very difficult to negotiate with Japanese because Japan is a high-context culture and there is a lot to guess. The message is so implicit that you are not even sure if an answer “yes” really means “yes”. So, negotiating with Swedes is a smooth process.
Swedes are not integrated into in-groups. They are an individualistic society tolerant to other people – outgroups. We can see that from Ingleharts map where Sweden is very high on self-expression. Inglehart states that ranking high on this dimension means tolerance to outgroups. When asked if children should possess the quality tolerance and respect for other people, more than 90% of Swedes answered positively. This fact may turn out to be an obstacle for Bulgarians. Being a collectivistic country (Hofstedes research), it isnt tolerant to other people outside its group.
Another impediment is the differences between the management style of Swedes and that of Bulgarians. A Swedish manager considers himself as a coach rather than a commander (Sverigeturism). He delegates tasks and doesnt take advantage of his superior position. Its exactly the opposite in Bulgaria. Bulgarian managers have authoritarian style of management. Employees are told what to do and managers expect privileges. Thats why Bulgarians should change their management style if they are to manage Swedish people and want to adapt to the situation.
In Anders Porters opinion, companies in Sweden are less hierarchical than companies in other countries. Hofstedes Power Distance dimension (PD) proves that statement. The distance between superiors and subordinates in Sweden is quite low – 31 (average 65). The manager benefits from creativity and motivation of staff through cooperation and agreement. Swedes value consensus