Essay About Different Approaches And Classical Approach

Cross Cultural Management: Six Perspectives
Cross-cultural management: six perspectives
Traditionally cultural studies have focussed on differences in values between different cultural groups. It is assumed that people are in different cultures because their values are different however this doesnt seem to be the case. Culture is defined as “the programming of the mind that differentiates one group from another” Hofstede (1980). It is important not to confuse cross cultural management with international management. There are many different approaches to cross cultural management. This paper outlines six perspectives of the cross-cultural management, and use Malaysia as their example. First is the classical approach, which is about to studying cross cultural impacts is to measure one variable and compare to ethnicity. They assume that managers need to understand Hofstedes theory and can apply this to management. Second is the anthropologist approach recognises that cultures and ethnicity are not the same thing. There are sub-groups within ethnicities that differ. Ong Fon Sim (1993) showed the Chinese-educated Malaysian Chinese and non-Chinese educated Malaysian Chinese have two significantly different cultural values. Others have found that individuals can move from one ethnic group to another when it suits them (Boulanger, 1996). Some authors believe that Malaysians can be split into two categories, those that wish to mix and those that dont. Third is the psychological approach, it recognises that ethnicities as well as contextual factors are not the only things important in culture. This approach suggests that people need to recognise that within each business there are lots of layers, you cannot take the individual on their own, they are within an office, within a department etc. There are many layers and the manager may be able to change some layers but not others. Forth is stereotyping approach. The differences of this approach are between