Cultural Analysis For Business in Country- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theCultural Analysis For Business in Country. Answer: Culture can be defined as the set of learned behaviors as well as beliefs that mainly characterizes a group of people or a society. Anthropologists mainly divide culture in three different levels like the international culture, national culture as well as subculture. However, another sublevel of culture has high significance in every corporate and professional business environment. This is called the corporate culture (Jiang, Gollan and Brooks 2017). This is mainly seen to refer to the different beliefs as well as behaviors that participate in determining the procedures about how employees and management interact in the office environment and handle outside business transactions. Researchers are of the opinion that corporate culture gradually develops organically over time from the variety of the cumulative traits of the people hired by the company (Kwek and Lee 2015). This assignment will help to show how Mary (the individual in the case study) will utilize the Hofstede analysis and will learn about the corporate culture of Chinese firms so that she can conduct effective business. In order to conduct effective business, Mary, who is acquainted with the Australian culture of business and management, needs to develop cultural knowledge about the different attributes of corporate culture in China. She needs to take the help of Hofstede theory by which she can develop good amount of knowledge of the culture of business in Mr. Laus organization and engage into effective partnership. The first important component that an individual should first focus is the power distance. This can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of the institutions and organizations within a particular nation expect as well as accept the fact that power is distributed unequally. Australia has a very low score of power distance like 36 which signifies that the leaders of Australian organizations encourage development of hierarchy for convenience where the seniors are always accessible and approachable. Managers have huge dependency on the subordinates and both the stakeholders engage in transparent conversations where information is shared and consulted frequently and actively (Manrai et al. 2018). Here, communication is found to be direct, participative as well as informal. China, in this attribute score about 80 where the society believes that inequalities are acceptable in people and subordinates do not aspire beyond their rank. The relationship between the leaders and followers are polarized and subordinates are influenced by formal authority and are accepting of the fact (Hong et al. 2018). While working with the new people in the Chinese organization, she should be respectable of the relationships shared by the seniors and juniors regarding power distance and should not try to be over friendly or too informal with staffs. This may not be liked by the organization. She should maintain a power distance with the subordinates so that the workers do not suffer from cultural shock and get confused or perceive her in negative ways. The second important fact is individualism. This dimension mainly explains the degree of interdependence that a society is observed to maintain among the members. In societies which are individualist, the professionals are mainly seen to be looking after their own self or their families. However, in the collectivist society, people are seen to be belonging to group systems where individuals take care of each other in exchange of loyalty. Australians are found to be quite high in this attribute scoring a total around 90. In this corporate culture, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Hiring is entirely based on merit and evidence about how one performs or the qualities he has. However, the score of china in this attribute is quite low for about 20 where people act for the interest of the groups (Alexander, Thompson and Murray 2017). Relationships are seen to be cooperative for the in-groups but they display hostile behavior with the out groups. Personal re lationships are given importance over task as well as company (Armstrong et al. 2017). For example, while Mary will be conducting the cross-cultural business, she should try to understand the culture, promote, and respect group working providing importance and sharing information with the whole, group rather than taking an individualistic approach. The next attribute is the masculinity attribute. This attribute mainly refers to the focus developed by the corporate culture that mainly tends to motivate people in two ways wanting to be the winner and develop as the best called the masculinity and liking what the employees do that is called the feminine trait. On the level of masculinity attribute, a high level of score is seen to indicate an interesting feature. This states that society is driven by the achievement, competition as well as success. Here the term success mainly means being the best or the winner in the field. A low score on this attribute means high on femininity where the main dominant and guiding values of the society is quite different. This is seen to involve caring for the others and maintaining a high quality life (Hung and Rundle-Thile 2014). Australia is seen to score 60 on Masculinity that states that they are proud of their success and achievements in life. China is also seen to have a value of 66 that s tates that Chinese corporate culture is also driven by success where they are even ready to sacrifice their family and leisure. Therefore, this attribute should be kept in mind and therefore, Mary would develop a working culture that should be competitive and gives scopes to the workers to show their skills. Another important attribute is called the uncertainty avoidance which mainly describes the extent to which members of any organization or a culture can be exposed to the feeling of being threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and thereby beliefs on institutions which try to avoid this (Choudhary, Kumar and Phillip 2016). The nation of Australia scores a moderate rank of about 51 which provides them a scope to prepare themselves for future uncertainties but may not be very well adapted and through about the procedures for uncertainty avoidance. The score of the Chinese nation is quite low for about 30. They are quite comfortable with ambiguity and there adherence to laws and rules unlike the westerners are quite flexible to suit with the actual situation and pragmatism. Another important aspect of this analysis is the long-term orientation. This dimension mainly helps to describe how each and every society are successful in maintaining some links with their own past so that they can properly deal with the challenges of the present and even the future. Researchers are of the opinion that corporate societies that tend to score low in this attribute mainly prefer the maintenance of the time-honored traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion (Sharma et al. 2017). Those who score high on this attribute are mainly seen to take a more pragmatic approach where they encourage different types of thrifts as well as efforts in the modern education to reflect a way of preparing oneself for the future. People of the Australian origin are more normative in thinking procedures as the nation scores 21 in this attribute. They tend to be exhibiting strong respect and support for traditions and shows small propensity for saving for the future (Vo gel et al. 2015). They focus on achieving quick results. On the other hand, china is seen to score about 87 in this attribute that makes it evident that the nation is a believer of pragmatic orientation where people are shown to adapt to the traditions easily to changed situations. They can adopt quite easily and are believers of saving and investment, thriftiness and shows perseverance in achievements of the results (Mar et al. 2015). Therefore, Mary should not focus on traditions much, should provide them scope to adapt themselves with the situations, and should not force them to achieve results, as they believe in perseverance for providing the best outcomes. The next attribute is called the indulgence. This attribute mainly describes the extent to which people are seen to try their best for controlling the desires as well as the impulses depending upon which the individuals were raised. Usually, the strong control is called indulgence and strong control is called restraints. Australia is seen to have a high score for about 71 and is therefore seen to be indulgent is nature. They are generally seen to be exhibiting a willingness to realize the various types of impulses as well as desires in regards with that of enjoying lives and having fun (Lo et al. 2017). They are seen to display a very positive attitude as well as also having a tendency towards optimism. They are also seen to provide much importance on leisure activities and thereby act as they please and spend money as they wish. On the other hand, china is seen to score for about 24 that show that they are not much aligned to leisure activities. They are more restrained where they f eel that are bound by social norms and feels that indulging them in other co curricular activities would be wrong. They are also seen to control gratification of their desires (Wang et al. 2017). Therefore, when Mary would be deciding the working styles or would be coming into partnership with this organization she should be not considering any activities for leisure or would not need to consider about engaging them in any activities for leisure. The Chinese people are more restrained. They may not like this gesture shown by Mary. From the above discussion, Mary can successfully develop ideas about the differences and variations of the corporate culture she needs to consider when coming into partnership or in any cross-cultural business deals with the Chinese organization of Mr.Lau. She should consider the six important attributes like power distance, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence, masculinity, individualism and long-term orientation between the two nations. These would help her in ensuring cultural sensitivity while interacting with the people from other culture and would put away situations of cultural shock. This would ensure success of her business plans. References: Alexander, R., Thompson, N. and Murray, D., 2017. Towards cultural translation of websites: a large-scale study of Australian, Chinese, and Saudi Arabian design preferences.Behaviour Information Technology,36(4), pp.351-363. Armstrong, A.F., Francis, R.D. and Grow, H.S., 2017. Ethical issues in the employment of expatriate leaders in corporations.Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, p.95. Choudhary, N., Kumar, R. and Philip, P.J., 2016. Effects of transformational leadership on follower's organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of culture.Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management,9(7), pp.23-35. Hong, J., Hou, B., Zhu, K. and Marinova, D., 2018. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and employee creativity: The moderation of collectivism in Chinese context.Chinese Management Studies. Huang, Y.T. and Rundle-Thiele, S., 2014. The moderating effect of cultural congruence on the internal marketing practice and employee satisfaction relationship: An empirical examination of Australian and Taiwanese born tourism employees.Tourism Management,42, pp.196-206. Jiang, Z., Gollan, P.J. and Brooks, G., 2017. Relationships between organizational justice, organizational trust and organizational commitment: a cross-cultural study of China, South Korea and Australia.The International Journal of Human Resource Management,28(7), pp.973-1004. Kwek, A. and Lee, Y.S., 2015. How face matters: Chinese corporate tourists in Australia.Journal of Travel Tourism Marketing,32(1-2), pp.120-140. Lo, K.D., Waters, R.D. and Christensen, N., 2017. Assessing the applicability of Hofstedes cultural dimensions for Global 500 corporations Facebook profiles and content.Journal of Communication Management,21(1), pp.51-67. Manrai, L.A., Manrai, A.K., Lascu, D. and Friedeborn, S., 2018. Determinants and Effects of Cultural Context: A Review, Conceptual Model, and Propositions.Journal of Global Marketing, pp.1-16. Mar Miras?Rodrguez, M., Carrasco?Gallego, A. and Escobar?Prez, B., 2015. Are socially responsible behaviors paid off equally? A Cross?cultural analysis.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,22(4), pp.237-256. Sharma, N., Boyle, B., Mitchell, R., Malik, A., Gray, S. and OMahony, B., 2017. Leveraging the common and outsourcing the distinct: institutional difference and multinational company identity in emerging economies.Social Identities, pp.1-18. Vogel, R.M., Mitchell, M.S., Tepper, B.J., Restubog, S.L., Hu, C., Hua, W. and Huang, J.C., 2015. A cross?cultural examination of subordinates' perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision.Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(5), pp.720-745. Wang, R., Chan, D.K.S., Goh, Y.W., Penfold, M., Harper, T. and Weltewitz, T., 2017. Humor and workplace stress: a longitudinal comparison between Australian and Chinese employees.Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.