Impact of Cross-Cultural Differences Free-Samples for Students

Question: How Cultural Differences Impact on Managerial Problem Solving and Decision Making. Answer: Cultural differences come about as a result of the inheritance of values, concepts as well as ways of living that people of a common background share. People acquire most of their cultures during childhood, before puberty. Research has shown that human beings have a great ability to absorb cultural norms from their locality at an early age. However, adults who belong to another culture can also adapt to other cultures during their lifetime and operate smoothly in foreign lands. Culture can work at national level, organizational level, occupational level, and gender level. In the todays globalized world, managers in the multi-cultural global business society must learn to manage employees from diverse backgrounds to be able to make the right decisions. This paper relies on findings by Geert Hofstede and other established researchers to illustrate how cultural differences in the present globalized organizations impact on managerial problem solving and decision making. To limit the scop e of this research, it will focus on ways of analyzing the impact of cross-cultural differences in managerial problem solving and decision making. The first way of analyzing cross-cultural differences and their impact on managerial problem solving and decision making is time focus. Depending on the tradition and history of cultures, time is viewed differently in all cultures. Researchers have distinguished two major time systems, which are polychromic and monochromic. In a culture where polychronic time system is embraced, most people always focus on multiple tasks but rely less on detailed information. Besides, their schedules are always open to change as they consider that people take priority over schedules (Parker, 2006; Hall Hall, 2012). On the other hand, in cultures where monochromic timing is adhered to, people use time in a linear way. They perform a single activity at a time whiling following a pre-set schedule. The focus of managers who operate in these cultures is information rather than people. The difference in what matters to these individuals directly influences how and when they solve problems and the type of decisions that their perception of time can allow them to make (A conversation with Geert Hofstede, 1993; Kwa?niewska et al., 2014). Other than monochromic and polychromic time focus, time orientation also determines the impact of cross-cultural differences in managerial problem solving and decision making (Lovett Forbus, 2011). While some cultures are more concerned with past events, some others are concerned with either present or future events. Cultures that focus on past events value plans that are in sync with the traditions and history of organizations. These cultures are interested in short-time gain. Visionary managers are concerned about long-term benefits. Countries like Iran, India, and the Far East operate in a culture that is oriented towards the past (A conversation with Geert Hofstede 1993). However, others such as the urban US culture are oriented towards both the present and the short-time future. Some cultures such as that of Latin America are oriented towards the past and the present. Savvy managers who work for past oriented organizations put great empathize on traditions, and they build on them long-term strategic plans. Future-oriented organizations, on the other hand, value employees who focus on the future, and not the past (Hall Hall, 2012). Power is another way of analyzing and understanding other cultures. Hofstede (1993) studied the belief that organizational power ought to be distributed unevenly and discovered this concept. He found out that a higher power distance shows that hierarchy is properly established and executed in the community. A lower index, on the other hand, shows that question authority and make serious attempts to distribute power (Bowman, 2007). In cultures that are oriented to hierarchy, managers put great emphasis on the level of power. The managers duty is to take decisions and distribute the work to his subjects. The employees, in turn, implement these directions (Atuahene?Gima Wei, 2011). Further, in certain cultures, inequality is accepted, and any attempt to change the situation is not welcome. In those cultures where inequality is considered unacceptable, reforms can be embraced with relative ease (de Mast Lokkerbol, 2012). Although equality oriented cultures exist to facilitate relations within the workplace, they do not emphasize hierarchy. In these particular scenarios, managers themselves take an active role in the work, and their main role is not simply to give directions (Bazerman Moore, 2013). Additionally, managers do not take the decision alone. Instead, it is done at the level of all employees affected by an issue. While this research focuses on the impact of cross-cultural differences on managerial problem solving and decision making, it is apparent that some cultures especially equality oriented cultures, managers play a limited role in solving problems and making decisions. All interested parties come together and make decisions (Hofstede Hofstede, 2010). Competitiveness and activity are other factors that impact problem-solving and decision-making in these organizations. In a free market, the management may find it easy to promote completion in their organization. Most organizations that encourage competition among employees do so to make them more responsible and more creative. An organization that embraces competition can easily focus on wealth, performance, and ambitions. In other cultures, organizations especially where competition is not valued as much as the good working atmosphere, there is more focus on job satisfaction (de Mast Lokkerbol, 2012). Regarding activity, some companies have doing cultures while others are not. In the case of a doing culture, the management focuses on developing measurable, time-framed actions. On the other hand, being cultures put significant emphasis on the vision the organization endeavors to realize (Kim Grunig, 2011; Livermore, 2009). Both public and private space also plays a critical role in determining how cross-cultural differences influence managerial problem solving and decision making. Research shows that cultures differ in their perception of the available space. A space that some cultures consider private, others may consider public. When it comes to proximity, personal zone, during conversations, cultures differ significantly (Livermore, 2009; Hurn Tomalin, 2013). When a personal zone is compromised, some discomfort is caused to the affected party. In cultures where personal or family matters can be discussed openly, managers have greater access to information on things that affect particular employees (Livermore, 2009). However, in cultures where privacy is very essential, there is an incredibly high formality in business related conversations. Due to such a high formality level, managers have limited access to critical information on the personal issues affected their employees. Consequently, they have difficulty solving some problems and making some critical decisions (Hurn Tomalin, 2013). High-context and low-context communications also play a major role in this management context. Foremost, the term context has been defined as the surrounding circumstances in which communication takes place. According to Hall and Hall (2012), who provided this definition, there is a clear distinction between low context and high context. They made the distinction between these two concepts clear by stating that a high context communication refers to a message that is already present in the individual (Atuahene?Gima Wei, 2011). However, there is little information is accessible in the coded, explicit, transmitted section. They also defined a low context communication as one in which a significant amount of the information is held in the explicit code. A great illustration of the application of the two concepts is found in Japan and the US context. Japan is viewed as a high context country since information is not well understood in the text. The US, on the other hand, is viewed as a low context country as the information is granted clearly (Maude, 2011). Individuals in low-context and high-context cultures embrace different communication styles. The latter commonly use the less direct styles. For that reasons, they are less explicit is putting cross their feelings, intentions, and desires when communicating verbally. People in the low-context culture, for example, the US, are less likely to conceal their intentions, desires, and feelings when communicating verbally (A conversation with Geert Hofstede 1993; Swearingen, 2013). The culturally normative communication style makes the responsiveness of people to messages that are transmitted and influences the communicators perceptions. In effect, this means it influences hiring decisions. Human resource managers in low-context cultures are highly likely to hire somewhat aggressive and assertive applicants. However, in high-context cultures, the reverse pattern is observed (Bazerman Moore, 2013). Individualism and collectivism structures also impact on these managerial roles. This word structure point to organizational structures that exist in business. Cultures that embrace individualism emphasize on the individual over the group. Hofstede noted that the individual is emphasized in some cultures than others. Those that do not emphasize the individual do so to the group. The in-groups work together and support each other when problems arise in another in-group (A conversation with Geert Hofstede 1993). Individualist cultures require individuals to be more self-reliant and do not find a major reason for people to resort to groups. Collectivism, on the other hand, refers to the practice of sharing values of the group in instances where the groups interests outweigh the interests of the individual. Clearly, collectivism and individualism are two opposite concepts (A conversation with Geert Hofstede 1993). Individualism and collectivism are another main discovery of Hofstede. He ranked the United States number one in individualism. This sociologist found that most parents in the U.S bring up their children on self-reliance. These children have been raised to voice their unique opinions and ideas. When it come to their college study and job choices, American children are responsible for their choices (Hofstede Hofstede, 2010). In some cultures, such as the one in Japan, the society puts great emphasis on the group approach to all aspects of their life. The research as established that the Malaysians and Chinese also put emphasis on the group approach and the family. The possible impact of cultures that value individualism is a high number of independent managers as well as employees who demonstrate responsibility towards what they can execute and lead to creativity. Cultures that value collectivism can produce many managers who tend to delegate a lot of authority to other employees. In the case of the former concept, people who have difficulty doing well at work may have no one to help them, and then that increases their chances of getting sacked. In the latter, leadership task can be taken over by people who have no ability to deliver the best results (Swearingen, 2013; Wood et. al., 2009). Peer Pressure also work closely with individualism and collectivism. Peer pressure has a greater effect in individuals in collectivist cultures. In line with the dictates of collectivist culture, Chinese students, for example, have greater chances than Italian students to decide to eat in a fast food restaurant contingent in their societys norms. They are less likely to make choices that give preeminence to personal attitudes (Swearingen, 2013). Nevertheless, this unusual trait is exhibited more when they decide to eat with their friends than when they plan to eat alone. In the latter context, these students are more likely to act contingent on their feelings. This scenario depicts what happens for managers in these cultures when peer pressure is involved. When some managers make a decision that appears to promote collectivist culture, other managers are bound to follow suit (Swearingen, 2013). Differences in values and philosophies also have a significant influence on the managerial duties. The difference between occidental and oriental philosophies results into variances in both beliefs and values that can demonstrate how different cultures influence organizations. Occidental philosophies are popular for their extensive use of analytical thinking, a methodical approach of breaking complex problems in their constituent parts then identifying the cause and effect patterns of each of these parts. For instance, this hypothesis indicates that the way cultures build and build their health care systems culturally determined attitudes such as gender roles and age (Sye, 2005; Wood et. al., 2009). Oriental philosophies put great emphasis on holism. This concept suggests that the parts alone of cannot help in determining and explaining the properties of a particular system. Oriental cultures provide that age is a sign of wisdom, people should mind whatever they do without focusing on the outcome, and women are good at executing some duties. Other than differences in beliefs and philosophies, priming also plays a major role in this sphere. Research suggests that exposure to various elements of the social world shapes thinking and decision making (Kaye Eid, 2003; Abeto, 2010). When people are exposed to these elements in a way that take place below intention or awareness, they learn the stereotypes that with time begin to influence their decisions from shared schematic representations in given cultures. Managers who are primed with certain concepts, in most cases by an instruction to think about it, the relevant information become activated in them, and that consequently influences their decisions. One way to illustrate this is an individual who has been directed to underline all first person pronouns in an article is primed with the idea of collectivism. He will consequently begin to make decisions by the values of this concept that he has been primed with (Abeto, 2010; Kaye Eid, 2003). Pressure to provide reasons for a particular decision or action also influences the decision and leadership style of these managers. Research shows that when people are required to give reasons for their decision, cultural knowledge is recruited. At this moment, an information-processing strategy that depends on the top-down application of norms is evoked. This finding can be explained by the theory that people feel the pressure to conform to their cultural norms whenever they are asked to defend their decision (Miroshnik, 2013). The rationale behind this is that they do not want to appear to be outsiders. This pressure, however, does not apply when people are not asked to support their choices. In this case, some people choose to rely on their personal knowledge. Chinese managers are an example of individuals who research has shown to be the less little lot to compromise when not asked to defend their decision (Sye, 2005). On the other hand, when they are not accountable to provide an explanation, American belongs to the group of people who are more likely to compromise on the cultural convictions (Miroshnik, 2013). Therefore, when American managers are making the managerial decision in an environment where there is no such pressure, they ignore cultural ties. However, when there is the pressure, they abide with their cultural beliefs. Conclusion Cultural differences have an impact on managerial problem solving and decision making. Culture determines how these managers think, make decisions, and would like to be viewed in public. However, it is clear that for cross-multination corporations to succeed, they require not only cross-cultural communication but also mutual respect and effective leadership. Successful managers who operate in these organizations use effective cross-cultural teams provide innovative thinking to improve the competitive position of their organizations and sort out potential communication problems. Since multi-cultural projects are becoming the norm in the todays globalized world, project managers need to be culturally sensitive. References A conversation with Geert Hofstede. (1993). Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 53-61. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90033-w Abeto, M. N. (2010). Financial Analysis and Risk Assessment of Grouper Cage Culture Systems in Negros Occidental. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research, 4(1). doi:10.7719/jpair.v4i1.111 Atuahene?Gima, K., Wei, Y. (2011). The Vital Role of Problem?Solving Competence in New Product Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 81-98. Bazerman, M.H. Moore, D.A. (2013). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 8th edition. USA, John Wiley Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-06570-9 Bowman, K. (2007). Understanding and Respecting Cultural Differences. Palliative Care, 206-219. doi:10.1016/b978-141602597-9.10015-8 de Mast, J., Lokkerbol, J. (2012). An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the perspective of problem solving. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(2), 604-614. Hall, E. T., Hall, M. R. (2012). Understanding cultural differences:. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hurn, B. J., Tomalin, B. (2013). Teaching Cross-Cultural Communication. Cross-Cultural Communication, 274-293. doi:10.1057/9780230391147_15 Kaye, A. S., Eid, M. (2003). The World of Obituaries: Gender across Cultures and over Time. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 123(4), 919. doi:10.2307/3590004 Kim, J.-N. Grunig, J.E. (2011). Problem Solving and Communicative Action: A Situational Theory of Problem Solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120149. Kwa?niewska, A., Thomas, K., Baker, R. (2014). Are there cross-cultural differences in emotional processing and social problem-solving? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(2). doi:10.2478/ppb-2014-0026 Livermore, D. A. (2009). Cultural intelligence: improving your CQ to engage our multicultural world. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Lovett, A., Forbus, K. (2011). Cultural commonalities and differences in spatial problem-solving: A computational analysis. Cognition, 121(2), 281-287. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.012 Maude, B. (2011). Developing cross-cultural skills. Managing Cross-Cultural Communication, 205-233. doi:10.1007/978-0-230-34595-9_8 Miroshnik, V. W. (2013). Organizational Culture and Commitment. Organizational Culture and Commitment, 10-36. doi:10.1057/9781137361639_2 Parker, C. (2006). The thinkers 50: the world's most influential business writers and leaders. Westport, CT: Praeger . Swearingen, C. L. (2013). Social Loafing. The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1205-1207. doi:10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp502 Sye, G.L. (2005). Its still not a problem: Systematic problem solving for business. Soarent Pty Ltd, Queensland. Wood, R., Cogin, J. Beckman, J. (2009). Managerial problem solving: Frameworks, tools, techniques. McGraw-Hill, Australia