5BUS1054-0206 Cross-Cultural Management Assignment Sample
Module code and Title: 5BUS1054-0206 Cross-Cultural Management Assignment Sample
Introduction
This context is based on a detailed analysis of certain cultural factors that can be witnessed in a multinational company (Romani, Mahadevan and Primecz, 2018). It is furnished with the understanding of essential distinctions between individualism as well as collectivism according to the framework and model presented by Hofstede.
This represents a strong receptacle considering the various cultural environments working in a single group or workplace. The details mentioned in this assignment can greatly influence the ideas and working techniques of an HR director of a company working with a wide range of cultural backgrounds in one go. Uncertainty avoidance and its characteristics have been mentioned in detail along with its importance to a community.
The difference between Western and Eastern cultures has been highlighted after the detailed analysis and explanation of each model. This writeup has been researched and analyzed in-depth to attain the most appropriate meaning of the situation and subjects provided. Gaining knowledge over this detailed analysis can greatly help in improving work coordination and productivity in an organization.
TASKS
Similarities and differences of Individualism Versus Collectivism using Hofstede’s model
Understanding the basic difference between Individualism as well as Collectivism can help in building a strong framework to communicate in a cross-cultural environment. Collectivism and individualism both are based on practices, cultural patterns, political theories, and principles.
These two are contradictory to each other. Hofstede has developed a cultural model mainly to evaluate differences in beliefs and values related to work ethics. This framework is useful in providing important information about the variations between countries and solutions to manage such differences (Ugrin, Pearson and Nickle, 2018).
Individualism can be understood as a property of an individual to invest a greater part of his potential in attaining personal objectives. Whereas collectivism implies that there is higher importance given to attaining the well-being and goals of the group.
This factor represents the power that the people of the same group have within themselves toward their collective task. If the individualism versus collectivism rate is high, it indicates a lack of interpersonal relationships between the people of that community. This means that every individual takes less accountability for his or her colleague’s outcomes as well as actions.
The people of a collectivist community should be loyal and friendly to their respective groups (Sabri, Hakim, and Zaila, 2020). They have to protect each other’s interests by understanding that they are one team aiming for the same goal together. If the group is large the members must take the responsibility for each other’s well-being.
Reflection of IDV with respect to the cultures of the two countries
A high IDV suggests that the group considers themselves accountable primarily for themselves and their families. Whereas a low IDV level prioritizes the loyalty of the entire group or broader family for higher results. The World Average score states that the United Kingdom is higher than the average western country.
The British people are individualistic, extend their hobbies to find their objective in life, and celebrate themselves in their limited ways. As mentioned above, high IDV tends to make the British population vibrant and creative, but extensive consumerism and slight attentiveness still exist.
By distinction, China is a widely collectivist in culture. Here people treat their interests as submissions in comparison to the organization’s task. Chinese will act as if they are part of the group without assuming their benefit is being seized. This attitude would make them accountable for their roles and relationships with other collaborators (Romani et. al., 2018).
Similarities and differences of Uncertainty Avoidance using Hofstede’s model
According to the model framework presented by Hofstede, uncertainty avoidance evaluates the importance of members of a community attempting to withstand apprehension by undervaluing skepticism (Minkov and Kaasa, 2021).
Uncertainty avoidance has been commonly mistaken and correlated with risk escape. Nevertheless, UAI does not handle risk escape. It pledges with the addictions and ceremonies that a community feels satisfied practicing (Sochor, 2020).
The third cultural dimension of Hofstede is uncertainty avoidance. It refers to the extent to which people of a particular society are feeling comfortable with threats, tension, and unexpected circumstances. Society in increased uncertainty departure communities inclines to avoid suspicion and unpredictability at purpose.
Societies with low uncertainty avoidance have certain characteristics. They use an informal attitude during their interactions with others. Those people tend to appear less standardized and maintain fewer titles. They generally rely on informal standards for most issues and are less measured while putting up with risks. These people only have moderate hostility to change (Rezaei, Jafari-Sadeghi and Bresciani, 2020).
It has been studied that uncertainty avoidance has a coherent and unique impact on the practice of and reaction to statements indicating formality as well as legitimacy. In preferable situations, the usage of such an attitude directs to increased phases of interpersonal interests.
To prefer higher uncertainty avoidance than the individual you are working with, these are certain factors to be taken into consideration. The need for action, flexibility, and testing must be admitted. The individual must offer his take on the risks that are possible while undergoing the project and must facilitate the analysis of other explanations.
In case the manager’s preference is low uncertainty avoidance then the individual he is working with may be provided with detailed instructions while authorizing tasks. The individual must acknowledge the necessity of protocols and patterns. That factor is beneficial in numerous situations. While giving chores or inquiring for assistance, the manager may provide supplementary knowledge and set the assignments in context. This will help in understanding the requirements better and retain an emotion of profitable assistance to the company’s endeavor (Hao, Farooq and Sun, 2018).
Reflection of UAI with respect to the cultural differences of two countries
This dimension of uncertainty avoidance is majorly focused on understanding the uncertainty and vagueness of a society (Farrukh et. al., 2019). The countries with a high level of UAI have a propensity to establish the rules to reduce the risk of an uncertain future. They tend to protect unity by conserving institutions. The countries with low levels of UAI are inclined to approve the chance and tend to tackle anything that comes to them. They treat conflicts as a natural factor. According to the World’s Average uncertainty avoidance chart, low record circumstance implies that the British do not oversee what has been brought to them, probably associated with an individual’s behavior. They do not consider the influencing outcomes just like the Chinese population.
Chinese are generally more susceptible to tension than the people of the United Kingdom. According to Hofstede the primary reason for high uncertainty in China is their historical idolization and religious factors that they have to pursue to serve the code and hierarchy of their society. Maybe a vast amount of assumptions related to the passed laws, or procedures are still in practice. The law may not be detailed and the agenda in China may not be conditioned to fulfill any specific reliable pattern. The British people respect harmony and abide by the true and fair view (Bonsu and Twum-Danso, 2018).
Conclusion / Recommendation.
This was the overall analysis of the Hofstede model and framework providing all the necessary details and explanations. The most important factors that influence the productivity rate of a team with a variety of various cultural backgrounds can be highly altered with the help of this model. These studies can vastly improve the working environment into a healthy and goal-oriented place.
These factors are the building blocks to the success of any organization. Considering all the factors and comprehending all the information provided, an individual can easily furnish himself with all the qualities required to be an outstanding HR director of a multinational company. This assignment has furnished will all the essential details and research material required for a highly competitive business.
References
Hao, Y., Farooq, Q. and Sun, Y., 2018. Development of theoretical framework and measures for the role of social media in realizing corporate social responsibility through native and non‐native communication modes: Moderating effects of cross‐cultural management. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), pp.704-711.
Minkov, M. and Kaasa, A., 2021. A test of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture: Mirror images of subjective and objective culture across nations and the 50 US states. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(2-3), pp.230-281.
Rezaei, M., Jafari-Sadeghi, V. and Bresciani, S., 2020. What drives the process of knowledge management in a cross-cultural setting: The impact of social capital. European Business Review.
Romani, L., Barmeyer, C., Primecz, H. and Pilhofer, K., 2018. Cross-cultural management studies: state of the field in the four research paradigms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(3), pp.247-263.
Romani, L., Mahadevan, J. and Primecz, H., 2018. Critical cross-cultural management: Outline and emerging contributions. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(4), pp.403-418.
Sabri, O.M.A.R., Hakim, T.A.H.I.R. and Zaila, B.A.D.R.I.A.H., 2020. The role of hofstede dimensions on the readiness of IoT implementation case study: Saudi universities. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 98(16), pp.1-12.
Sochor, J., 2020. Comparison of Selected Attributes in Cultural Dimensions as Defined by Hofstede and the GLOBE Project. CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE CHANGING BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, 270.
Ugrin, J.C., Pearson, J.M. and Nickle, S.M., 2018. An examination of the relationship between culture and cyberloafing using the hofstede model. Journal of Internet Commerce, 17(1), pp.46-63.
Know more about UniqueSubmission’s other writing services:
