08 Matijevic Vrdoljak Raguz Filipovic
08 Matijevic Vrdoljak Raguz Filipovic
08 Matijevic Vrdoljak Raguz Filipovic
Davor Filipovıć
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Together with the new millennium, the global economy that is "world
without borders" has become an everyday way of modern business. In
order to fulfil the task given to them, the employees of around the globe
are working together. Modern technology, new ways of communication,
technology and information transfer has enabled us that such a business
is easy and affordable. The emerging trend of multinational corporations
and their increasing power in global economy have led to the fact that we
work and communicate globally each day - our business partners,
suppliers and customers are located all over the world, and this became
our reality. Given the large number of contacts, the successful use of
cultural diversity has become an important area of management. Although
this area is still emerging, it is an area of vital importance to the
management of people and processes in the modern economy; of
particular importance to the global managers who work for multinational
corporations located in different countries. Not just managers, but all
people doing business globally or just communicating globally, should
take into account the culture as an aspect of business, and take advantage
of all the resources that can international environment provide. The aim
of this paper is to show that the understanding of cultural roots of human
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 458
1. INTRODUCTION
In the context of globalization process and the growth of economic
interdependence between countries, national culture is becoming crucial for
modern business processes. Best and the most concise way to express the cultural
impact on management (Drucker, 2001), is with the statement that what managers
do is the same in the whole world, but how they do it can be entirely different.
Today, the globalization of business is expanding rapidly and continues to be
much researched and discussed (Fischer, 2003.;Clougherty, 2001.). With this
global expansion, understanding the impact of national culture on organizational
variables becomes a one of the most influential factor in the success or failure of
companies doing business globally. For most multinational companies, sensitivity
to national differences and ability to develop national variations in the “rules” and
ways of operating businesses in different parts of the world may improve the
success of these corporations (Ashton, 1984.).
Understanding culture can equip person for the challenges of modern
business environment. Nevertheless, recognizing and the importance of cultural
differences helps managers understand their international partners and
competitors and ultimately helps to improve their managerial skills (Cullen,
Praveen, 2005.). However, it is rather difficult to recognize a direct influence of
culture on business. Cultural diversity influences many processes in every-day
business, and thus it is quite important to manage it adequately in order to get the
best results.
Luthans & Doh, 2006). In general, the results show the diversity and similarity
among the values of work and managerial values in diverse cultures. Culture is
often shown by the model of culture that is reminiscent of concentric circles, the
inner circle, which is the core of the basic assumptions that determine human
behaviour; the middle represents the norms and values that are the foundation of
society, while the outer part of an explicit artefacts and products of the company
(Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner, 2008).
differences that arise as the impact of corporate policies and procedures because
of the impact of various strategies. Therefore any variation between countries can
be reliably attributed to national culture. Hofstede also found that employees and
managers vary according to the following dimensions of national culture: (1)
power distance, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) individualism vs collectivism, (4)
masculinity vs femininity, (5) long-term vs short-term orientation (in a later phase
of the study) (Hofstede, 1980).
(1) Power distance represents the degree of inequality in the distribution
of power within societies to be considered socially acceptable, and is derived
from the fact that power in institutions and organizations is not evenly distributed
(House et al., 2002). Societies with high power distance accept large differences
in power within the organization. (2) Uncertainty avoidance dimension measures
“the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain and
unknown situations”. Uncertainty avoidance indicates the extent to which a
society feels threatened by ambiguous situations and the extent to which a society
tries to avoid these situations by adopting strict codes of behaviour, a belief in the
absolute truths, establishing formal rules, and not tolerating deviant ideas and
actions. Individuals with high uncertainty avoidance are concerned with security
in life, feel a greater need for consensus and written rules, less likely to take risks
while individuals in low uncertainty avoidance societies are less concerned with
security, rules and they are more risk tolerant (Hofstede, 1980). (3) Dimensions
of individualism refers to societies in which the ties between individuals and the
poor of every individual is expected to look after themselves and their immediate
families, while collectivism refers to societies in which people from birth include
the strong cohesive groups that are protected throughout their life in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty. It is noted that the degree of individualism in a country
complies with the wealth of the country (Hofstede, 2001), and also countries with
a high degree of individualism are more inclined to the Protestant ethic,
individual initiative and progress to the market shift. Countries with low level of
individualism are less prone to the Protestant ethic, show less individual
initiative, while the progression of age-related / age. (4) Masculinity refers to a
society in which one can clearly observe the social roles by gender (Hofstede,
2001). Femininity refers to a society in which gender roles overlap, and that of
the women and men are expected to be humble, gentle, and focused on quality of
life (Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J.G., 2005). Dimensions can be compared using a
two-dimensional matrix. The integration of cultural factors in the two-
dimensional image helps illustrate the complexity and understand the impact of
culture on behaviour. But unfortunately, this matrix we cannot serve as a safe
pattern of how it will behave the members of these cultural entities. The fact is
that societies with high power distance should be less individualistic and vice
versa, but the behaviour of individual members in such a multicultural
environment due to the influence of other factors may differ significantly from
the behaviour that imply Hofsteade´s matrix. (5) The fifth dimension of long-term
vs. short-term orientation was added later (Hofstede, Bond, 1984), and refers to
the degree of orientation of the society, in the past, or the future. Long-term
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 463
the same as judging people based on their cultural background, it only represents
the awareness of difference. Neither one cultural group is successful or
unsuccessful, and only because of the element of culture. Judgments about
cultural diversity as an a priori good or bad leads to inappropriate, racist, sexist
and ethnocentric attitudes and behaviors. On the other hand, awareness of the
difference has the opposite effect. Cultural blindness limits the ability of
"profiting" from the diversity, it is a perceptual and conceptual; we do not see and
do not want to see the difference. The literature often reports the following types
of strategies for managing cultural diversity (Adler, 2002): (1) Ignoring cultural
diversity- managers do not recognize cultural diversity and their impact on the
organization. This strategy is very often used in parochialisation (Hofstede,
2001)). Therefore, they do not see and do not want to see any impact of cultural
diversity on the management and organization, and cultural diversity is
considered irrelevant. This strategy excludes effectively manage cultural diversity
and preclude the possibility of minimizing the negative impact and increase the
positive impact of cultural diversity. (2) Minimization of cultural diversity- this
strategy is often adopted in ethnocentric organizations. Managers recognize
cultural diversity, but only as a source of (potential) problems. In ethnocentric
countries managers of organizations believe that their way of operation and
management "best", the other modes are considered inferior. Diversity has been
reduced in a way to minimize the differences, while the benefits that derive from
it are not taken into account. (3) Organizations that adopt a management strategy
cultural diversity is synergistic organization. This type of organization
understands the impact of cultural diversity that includes their advantages and
disadvantages. Accepting synergistic approach, managers and employees reduce
potential problems in a way to manage the impact of cultural diversity, and not in
a way to reduce the very diversity. Organizations that use diversity management
strategy, train its managers and employees that they can recognize and take
advantage of cultural diversity in a way that they become an advantage for their
organization.
(first one focusing on differences, second one predicts that the strong logic of
global capitalism is leading to similar approaches at the organizational level and
the third one is the world polity approach) (Harzing, Pinnington, 2014).
6. CONCLUSION
Understanding and accepting national culture with its values, beliefs,
attitudes and forms of behaviour is a prerequisite for the success in the modern
business environment. Nowadays, business does not recognise the boundaries
between the countries, and expects us to embrace and utilize all types of
competitive advantages that the modern environment brings. Cultural differences
are constant and persistent, and they present a bunch of challenges especially for
multinational companies. Companies that manage adaptation effectively are able
to achieve advantages in the various cultures where they operate while extending
their main sources of advantage across borders, and in some cases even making
cultural diversity itself a source of advantage. Although, this emphasizes cultural
differences, which are often underappreciated, it’s equally important to take care
of cultural similarities. In managing adaptation, there’s also a great deal to be
gained by focusing on what unites us rather than what divides us. Culture and
cultural diversity can be both an asset and a liability. Managers must be able to tie
the issue of managing cultural diversity to the need of business and be skilful in
business issues, goals and results.
The impact of national cultures in international companies goes beyond
management style – it influences other business functions and organizational
parts of companies.
REFERENCES
Book with an author
Adler, N.J., International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 4th ed.,
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Thomson Learning, 2002.
Bahtijarević-Šiber, F., Sikavica, P., Pološki Vokić, N., Suvremeni menadžment:
vještine, sustavi i izazovi, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008.
Cullen, J. B., Praveen Parboteeah, K., „Multinational Management: A Strategic
Approach“, 3rd ed., Thomson South-Western, Ohio, 2005.
Drucker, P., Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Harper, New York, 2001.
Hodgetts, R.M, Doh, J.P., Luthans, F. (2006.), International Management: Culture,
Strategy, and Behaviour, 6th rev. Edit.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, J. G., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005.
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 468
drawn from Karen L. Newman and Stanley D. Nollen, “Culture and Congruence: The
Fit Between Management Practices and National Culture,” Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4 (4th Quarter, 1996), pp. 753-779.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H., “Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeach's value survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol.
15, pp. 417-433. 1984.
Hofstede, G., What dis GLOBE really measure? Researchers´ minds versus
respondents´ minds, Journal of International Business, 2006, 37, p 882-896.
House R.J., et al., Cultural influences on leadership and organizations- Project
GLOBE, Advances in Global Leadership, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1, 1999.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. and Dorfman, P., “Understanding cultures and
implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, pp. 3-10., 2002.
Isada, F. (2010) A Study about International Strategic Alliance: A Case Study in the
Auto Industry, Recent Researches in Business Administration, Finance and Product
Management, p. 64-67
Ojasalo, J. (2010) Barriers to Internationalization of B-to-B Services, Communication
and Management in Technological Innovation and Academic Globalization, p. 39-45.
Rao, N., Cultural breakdowns of communication and impact on the performance of
multicultural teams, ZENITH International, Journal of Business Economics &
Management Research, Vol, 1, Issue 3, 12/2011, ISSN 22498826, p. 85
Safire, W., China´s Four Fears, New York Times, May 22, A11., 1995.
Sǿndergaard, M., “Hofstede’s Consequences: A study of reviews, citations and
replications“, Organization Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, str. 447-456., 1994.
Wright, N., and Drewery, G. P. 2006. Forming cohesion in culturally heterogeneous
teams, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13 (1): 43-53
Paper published in conference proceedings
Nistor, R., Nistor, C., Muntean, M.-C., Adrian Istrati (2010) The Organizational
Climate Study in a Romanian Multinational Company, Proceedings of the 5th
WSEAS International Conference on Economy and Management Transformation
(Volume I), p. 485-490.
Internet resource
International Federation of Surveyors, 2007, Stig Enemark, Integrated Land-Use
Management for Sustainable Development. available at http://www.fig.net;