Esame Cross Cultural management

SAKARI

They want the possibility to enter in a new Market; Asia would perfect cause of its very high Expected

growth of mobile telecommunication (1990-94) and even for the very low percentage of Mobiles/people

(from 1 to 11).

They hope that Malaysian workers would be efficient in manufacturing, maintaining and ensuring quality,

products and prompt delivery.

They don’t want that Nora would be able to “steal their” technological competences and know-how.

Both the firms have bargaining power, because they have alternatives.

Nora has the possibility to deal with other firms interested in this joint venture like the ones that

participated to the bid (Siemens, Samsung, AT&T) maybe with a potential partner that will fit more with

their conditions and moreover with their organizational, cultural and structural characteristics(they don’t

abandoned the possibility of a renegotiation with Sakari).

Another Possible alternative would be to “steal” knowledges, professional, competencies and high tech

materials from some Western competitor in order to develop their own best technology, which indeed is

their real final aim

Sakari alternatives are related to the research of another partner or maybe to acquire a strategic small firm,

geographically well placed, that fit better in terms of culture, capabilities and resources and then that can

lead them to apply their idea of business.

An interesting option would be to focus in other country like UK that could act as a springboard to enter in

the UE market or they may find another firm placed in Asia with easier negotiation clauses.

3. Consider all the cultural dimensions presented by Hofstede, Hall,

Schwartz, Trompenaars and others. According to your personal point of

view, which are the dimensions that can best explain differences among

cultures? Choose 5 of them, provide a description of each dimension

and support your choice

2. Until now, we have examined different theories about different cultural dimensions, with the aim of

describing the various cultures that are present around the world: Hofstede, Hall, Trompenaars, Schwartz,

Lewis.

These Theorists take into account many variables, and even if we have some points of convergence (like the

universalistic approach vs. the particularistic one, that is present more or less in each theories though), it is

not possible to make an objective theory because we have always to deal with subjective prospectives.

In my opinion, in order to try to develop a trustful theory, I would like to analyze two opposite cultures,

trying to discover which are the most clearly distinguishable dimensions present between them.

A clear example could be the one that put on one side the USA, and on the other side the China.

I would like to take this consideration as a starting point, in order understand which are the dimensions

that, in my opinion can best explain these differences among cultures.

Distribution of power and authority in society; Hierarchy- Equality, High-Low

power distance:

This dimension want to explain how the power is distributed primary in a society: horizontal or vertical

relationships prevail. Even Hofstede pointed out a similar concept but, according to his idea, the degree of

power distance is “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the

family) accept and expect that power is unequally distributed” .

In the more egalitarian states (like USA, Scandinavia, etc.) people tend to be distributed in the middle class,

subordinates can express their opinion to bosses, the information is shared at different levels and there is

upward mobility.

Conversely, in Hierarchical countries such as China, India and etcetera; the society, considered as a whole, is

divided into distinct classes, where the upper ones own legitimate and stable power.

In general, subordinates feel very respectful to their superiors, and tend to always pursuing their will,

considering them as a sort of protector (paternalistic approach).

We must consider this dimension as notable, in particular if we are considering Business or negotiation

relationships.

As an evidence, we can take the example of the interesting video seen in the classroom, focused on the

creation of an international work team, led by an English Manager who had to cope with people from

allover the world such as Chinese, Italians, Indians, Americans and more.

The Team Leader had to face many unpredictable problems in dealing with different cultures.

One of the most evident was the relationship with the Chinese person because, even if he looked very well

prepared in its subject, because of its culture he could not be able to take any kind of decision without the

permission of his Chinese Boss; he always had to call and make him aware of every fact.

Of course, this is not an insurmountable handicap but, firstly, to solve a problem you must be aware of it, as

clearly appears even in the video.

Centrality of individuals or groups as the basis

This dimension even if is one of the easiest to be comprehend, is also the most shared among different

theorists off course with various meaning but the substantiality is the same for everyone.

In general, this dimension wants to explain what the crucial backbone of a society is: individuals or groups?

According to some theories, this dimension must be considered as the other side of the coin of the power

orientation dimension, but from my perspective even if I recognize an evident relationship between them,

they must be considered separately.

In an individualistic society the focus is on the single member on his personal career achievements and

independence; of course groups exist but they are simply considered as a sum of different induvial and the

concept of making something together in order to share knowledge and doing something in a better way is

in most of the cases an utopia.

Conflicts are inevitable; there exist simply the need of managing them because the pressure on controlling

actions came internally. Clear examples of these kind of cultures could be Germany, Us, Argentina, etcetera.

A collectivistic society instead is characterized by opposite features: the focus of the society is based on

groups that must be motivated in order to better act, there doesn’t exist an individual thought but

moreover a collectivity one.

We must ensure most of the times that conflicts don’t happen because the pressure on controlling actions

come from outside and all individual have to fit into the group.

I think that this dimension plays a crucial role in managerial sets of problems of the big multinational

enterprises that, as a sake of necessity has to govern a variety of behaviors and cultures.

In Theory, in the inter organizational relationships, the presence of a strong individualistic spirit should

enhance a barrier vs the realization of collaborative agreements with foreign partners, instead the

collectivistic spirit should accelerate the creation process of collaboration systems. But reality is absolutely

not like this.

Most of the times Individualism brings to opportunism helping the easier creation of collaboration with

external partners with the aim of obtaining personal advantages.

On the contrary, the collectivistic spirit transform the group in a sort of clan bringing in some way

individualism in international relationships: who is perceived different from the group is often not well

accepted.

As an evidence of that fact we can take the negotiation case of Raysun where, Indian mangers after have

felt their “diversity” in relation with American people ( standardised rules and “impoliteness”) immediately

left the negotiation room without completing any kind of negotiation.

Mechanism of personal and social control:

In universalistic cultures , rules apply equally to the whole ”universe” of members, regardless of

relationships, general rules, codes, values and standards must be followed with very rare exceptions. ”What

is good and right can be defined and always applied”, the aim is to simply find the best people able of doing

that determined task.

Clear examples of universalistic countries are USA, UK, Germany, Netherlands, etecetera

Particularist cultures pays attention to the obligations of relationships and unique circumstances.

Human friendship, extraordinary achievement and situations, the ”spirit of law” more important than the

”

”letter of law

EXAMPLE : You are a journalist who often writes restaurant reviews column for newspapers. A close friend

of yours has invested all his savings in his new restaurant. You have eaten there and you are asked to write

a review even for that particular restaurant.

The problem is that you think the restaurant is not very good.

Does your friend have some right to expect you to ignore bad comments in your review or does your friend

have no right to expect this at all?

Yes, he has some right to expect this (Particularism)

No; he has no right to expect this (Universalism)

In general terms this dimension even if is one of the most vague in my opinion is fundamental to better

understand deep differences between cultures and could bring many difficulties in the negotiation process

if the two parts have opposite visions.

As an evidence of that we can take the example of the video dealing with the building site in which the US

Manager (blond girl-absolutely Universalistic) had numerous problems in the work organization with the

Latin constructors (particularistic).

They know exactly how things go in “their World” and so they expected her to agree to a compromise in

order to get “difficult” supplies which are not easy to be found and more expensive than expected, but this

did not happened.

Use of time

The time dimension is considered notable by most of the theorists even if everyone gives different shade

and meaning, in my opinion the most complete dimension is the one that counterpoise:

Monochronic – where things are typically done one at a time, where time is segmented into precise, small

units, and where time is scheduled, arranged and managed (Clock time).

They value a certain orderliness and sense of there being an appropriate time and place for everything.

They do not value interruptions .

In such a culture, time represents a tangible commodity than can be spent, saved or wasted, and a

paramount value is placed on regimented schedules, tasks and “getting the job done”.

Clear examples could be the United States, Germany and Switzerland, to which could be added Britain,

Canada, Japan, South Korea.

Polychronic – where multiple things can be done at the same time, and a more fluid approach is taken to

scheduling time(flexitime). Such cultures tend to be less focused on the precise accounting of every

moment, and much more steeped in tradition and relationships rather than in tasks. Polychronic cultures

have a much less formal perception of time, and are not ruled by precise calendars and schedules.

Many Latin American, African, Asian and Arab cultures fall into this category, e