Collectivism and Individualism Cultural Syndromes †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Collectivism and Individualism Cultural Syndromes. Answer: Introduction The growing corporate industry has opened up significant opportunities for educated and skilled employees. At the international level, organisational managers need to identify the cultural differences among the workforce located in different countries to influence the efficiency and productivity of the corporate business (Ye, 2010). In this particular research study, an assessment of similarities and differences in managerial process and organisational culture at diverse locations has been presented drawing a number of issues and challenges affecting the management procedure. For an international manager, diversified cross-culture creates so many issues. Drawing cross-cultural concepts, the identified report describes how different culture in Australia and England affects individualism versus group orientation, decision-making abilities, communication, autocratic versus delegated leadership, superior-subordinate relationships, and managing teams. By utilising the analysis of national culture studied in the previous assignment, the report tends to evaluate how an international manager can deal with the situation of similar and different managerial process and corporate culture in two different national cultures i.e. Australia and England. Furthermore, the study provides significant real-life examples of a corporate firm operating in two different national cultures to show international managerial activities considered by a global manager dealing with different and similar corporate culture and management functions. Different cultural aspects have massively influenced the international managerial processes and corporate culture. In a review of the literature, Yavas and Rezayat (2013) identify that significant cultures improve the managerial perception of quality. In terms of cultural dimension, collectivism-oriented culture has contributed towards the greater commitment of employees as organisational values are strongly shred within the workforce. As a result of the scenario, such cultural aspects lead towards better management and productivity out of the human resources. In another research of cross-cultural management, Lundberg (2010) reviews that effective cultural orientation can affect the organisational managerial functions at the highest order. Based on the theoretical concepts, the author states that team-oriented organisational structure can be formed only if power distance index and long-term orientation index in culture is high. In such instances, influenced by the culture, the workfo rce will put significant value on training and career development increasing the efficiency of the firm. Also, the collectivist mentality of the human resource will deliver a sense of responsibility and accountability towards the organisation making the managerial task easier for an international manager (Ledimo, 2015). Goodhew, Cammock, and Hamilton (2015) evaluate the role of international managers to link the positive aspects of culture influencing the management processes and corporate culture. According to the research developed by the authors, a national culture of the employees can influence the business functions as the performance of a corporate firm can be reflected by the cultural values and attitude of human resources. For instance, emotional aspects of culture can make a wider impact on the corporate culture promoting employee engagement at the highest level. In such cases, an international manager must take a note of the emotional aspects associated with a national culture before jumping into a decision. Furthermore, a research conducted by Nicolas (2009) points out the impact of social culture determining corporate culture and learning of the human resources. According to the study, influenced by the social culture, collectivism-oriented employee groups have mostly developed a unique organisational culture where every individual can share their knowledge and values to each other. In this way, organisational learning can be influenced reducing the efforts of the managers. In such cases, organisational team management has become significantly easier for the manager as employees are already influenced by the corporate culture (Smolka, 2010). According to the study developed by Wickham and Parker (2007), cultural aspects attached to a particular workforce should be improvised by the managers so that cross-cultural issues in management can be resolved at different countries. In contemporary workforce management, influenced by the natural culture of the employees, a corporate manager should implement the role theory encouraging human resources to take significant management duties. Thus, cultural aspects can enhance managerial functions if a manager can use right strategic interventions (Gupta and Bhaskar, 2016). Apart from that, MNEs operating in different nations must prioritise local cultural aspects to increase the corporate functioning and managerial processes. In a study, Kidd (2011) describes how an international manager can define diversified activities based on the cultural dimensions. By discovering the similarities and differences in national culture, managerial operations such as virtual team management and decision-making will be taken into account based on perceptual differences. On the other hand, Jankov and Magdolen (2013) elaborate the effectiveness of cross-cultural managerial aspects by identifying cultural differences in two or more national cultures. Precisely, modern managers must value the social culture of a nation determining the leadership styles. If the culture of a nation promotes a higher sense of personal responsibility, talent management will become significantly effortless. In this particular cultural dimension, the role of the manager will be to harness and cultivate the talent resources of the workforce (Moran, Abramson and Moran, 2014). Assessment of similarities and differences in managerial processes and organisational culture In this very segment of the study, the similarities and differences in managerial functions and corporate culture which have to be encountered by an international manager have been described providing suitable examples. Precisely, the identified challenges to be examined in the case are explained as follows: In the contemporary corporate businesses, an international manager must identify the greater effect of individualism and collectivism to determine the managerial functions. Precisely, the characteristic of individualist community can show lesser degree of interdependency among the people (Marshall, 2008). Hence, an international manager must identify the individual merit of an employee to increase the productivity. On the other hand, in case of collectivist society, people belong to a larger group. As a result, in a collectivist society the degree of interdependency is higher. As per the characteristics of collectivist cultural dimension, a manager must treat the workforce as a single unit to encourage the sense of responsibility (Frank, Enkawa and Schvaneveldt, 2015). Also, higher form of group orientation can lead to strong corporate culture where each of the individual is linked with another. According to the different cultural dimensions, an individualist culture can be influence d if each of the participants is managed based on their personal traits and skills. By following the suit, the practice of self-reliance of the employees can be utilised by the management to take individual initiatives effective for overall performance of the organisation. Contradictorily, to manage the human resources working in a collectivist society, international managers must promote group orientation in every organisational function. In this way, collective effort of the employees can enhance the efficiency and performance of the firm. In case of Britain and Australian culture, both the countries have possessed individualist society where group orientation should be avoided by the international managers during the management of the workforce (Triandis, 2013). For instance, McKinsey Company, one of the leading multinational consulting agencies has followed different managerial processes in Australia and the United Kingdom. In case of Australia, the social people have belonged to highly individualist community that means common people have looked after their families as an individual rather than a collective group. Therefore, based on such cultural aspects of individualism, a corporate manager has to recruit and promote employees as per the indivi dual merit. Likewise, the British people are also highly individualistic by nature (Matsumoto et al., 2007). As a result of the same, the management of McKinsey Company has followed same sort of managerial practices to influence the workforce located at Australia and Britain. According to the Hofstede Cultural Dimension, low power dimension in culture can be effective in establishing greater communication. In the developed countries, the people strongly believe that inequality among the society must be minimised. As per the cultural belief, organisational people can develop suitable communication channels (Moran, Abramson and Moran, 2014). In the countries where power dimension is significantly lower, the management of the operating in such culture needs to put lesser effort on managerial activities. As superiors are commonly accessible, a systematic organisational hierarchy can be established promoting sophisticated communication (Maude, 2016). However, the countries where power dimension is comparatively higher, formal communication among the employees and superiors must be developed in a strategic way. As higher power dimension creates inequality, there is a distance created between the superiors and employees. In order to bridge the gap, effective cro ss-cultural communication strategy must be taken into consideration to influence the human resources. In case of Australia and Britain, the power dimension is considerably low confirming that it will be easier for an international manager to manage the organisational communication as managers can effortlessly rely on the employees. In the meanwhile, multinational firms operating in the countries where power distance is relatively greater, an international manager must promote collaboration between the top level executives and lower level employees so that the communication network can work effectively. In order to establish effective communication in different cultural environment, an international manager should identify the power distance within the culture. A lower power distance in culture such as in Australia and England will lead to improve communication system without much interference of the management. For instance, McKinsey Company has followed the same suit in their consulting operations in Britain and Australia to improve the communication system. Due to low dimension of power among the social citizens, executive leaders and employees belong to the lower level of organisational hierarchy can easily engage in discussion (Horwitz, 2011). Thus, overall productivity of the firm is increased whereas misconception can be minimised. Meanwhile, the greater communication has led to better employee engagement. In this, managing of human resources in two different countries will be relatively easier for an international manager if the manager acts following the power dimension of the national culture (Ziolkowski, 2015). Influenced by the low power distance, executive level officers and employees of McKinsey Company can frequently share the views and ideas. In this way, informal and participative communication can be established that has been effective for meeting the organisational goal and objective. In terms of decision making, there are several cultural factors that differentiates the decision making processes of the management of organisations situated in two different countries England and Australia. Firstly, the people of Australia are less concerned about long term orientation as compared to the people of England (Trent, Patterson and Woods, 2007). In the same manner, the decision making process of organisations in Australia are less focused on long term orientation. In other words, the decisions made by the management of Australian organisations are focused on short term goals and objectives (Barrett, 2013). For instance, the management of Australian organisations consider short term problems while making decisions in place of evaluating long term issues. Secondly, the management of Australian organisations are highly focused on uncertainty avoidance as compared to the management of Englands organisations (Hoffman and Klein, 2017). The management of Australian organisations considers the risk elements on highest priority in order to avoid uncertainties (Hoffman and Klein, 2017). On the other hand, the management of organisations in England do not consider the risk elements on highest priority while making decisions regarding the organisational strategies. Thirdly, the decision making process of Australian firms are primarily dominated by the feminist figures as compared to the decision making process of the organisations in England. On the basis of the cultural comparison made by using the Hofstede Cultural Dimension Model, it can be seen that the masculinity score for Australia is 61, whereas for the United Kingdom it is 66 (Trent, Patterson and Woods, 2007). Hence, the decision making process of the Australian firm is more dominated by feminist leaders as compared to the United Kingdom. However, in some point of view, it can be seen that the decision making process of the organisations in both the countries are similar due to the cultural similarities between the two nations (Barrett, 2013). For instance, Australia and England mainly comprises of English people and the lifestyles of the people in both the countries are same. The score for power distance, individualism, and indulgence is almost same (Trent, Patterson and Woods, 2007). Hence, these factors dominates the decision making process of the management in both the countries resulting in a similar approach. For instance, the decision in both the countries is taken by the higher authorities after considering the feedback of the employees. Autocratic versus delegated leadership According to De Cremer (2016), as seen from the eyes of the followers cannot be studied without considering the effect of cross-cultural context. In order to become the key player in the global market, the management invest in developing the leaders who have the knowledge and competencies to manage and understand their diverse workforce in both home nation as well as foreign markets. Furthermore, there leadership styles can be presented by using various theories and frameworks (Tarim, 2013). The two major types of leadership styles that are found in different organisations that vary with the change in the cultural context are known as autocratic leadership and delegated leadership. Autocratic leadership is a type of management in which the leader likes to centralise and control. The leaders derive their powers from their position of authority and control. On the other hand, in delegated leadership, the leaders assign the authority among their subordinates by encouraging active participation and empowering employees (Tarim, 2013). There have been few studies conducted to compare the consultative and participative leadership behaviour of the leaders in different nations. For instance, the managers in China are more likely to invite subordinates participation in solving problems. On the other hand, the managers in Australia tend to focus on consensus checking before coming to the final decision (De Cremer, 2016). However, the final decision is made by the higher level executives or senior official in the group after taking feedbacks from the subordinates. Hence, a much more democratic leadership style is evident in the nations that have collectivist nature of cult ure. On the other hand, the managers in the individualist cultures such as Australia and England are more focused on controlling the decision making process by practising autocratic leadership approaches. With change in time and increase in the proportion of foreign culture in Australia and the United Kingdom, democratic leadership approach has become a widely used leadership technique for the management of multinational companies (Tarim, 2013). It can be seen that consensus leadership practices have become common in the British as well as Australian firms. Furthermore, the use of democratic leadership approach has emerged to be a highly successful leadership style for the international HR management (De Cremer, 2016). It helps to seek better relationship with the subordinates and provide them with better roles and responsibilities. On the other hand, democratic leadership approach also helps to gain the employees trust and motivate them towards the growth of the organisation. Superior-subordinate relationships The subordinates and superior relationships is a key factor for the success of an organisation in the current environment of multicultural workforce. According to Hofstede (2013), a study has been conducted in order to understand how the relationship between the superior and subordinates varies with change in context to national culture. It can be seen through the study that employees of the nation with high power distance are less satisfied with participative superiors. On the other hand, the satisfaction level of the employees regarding participative superior increases with decreasing power distance (Mann, 2010). Hence, the relationship between the employees and the management is stronger in low power distance nations as compared to high power distance nations (McWorthy and Henningsen, 2014). For instance, the managers of the organisations in the UK and Australia are found to build strong relationship with their subordinates by influencing them to actively participate in the decisi on making process of the firms. Furthermore, the high level of power distance in the Asian countries creates a formal relationship gap between the superiors and the subordinates (Mann, 2010). However, the individualistic nature of the Australian and British people tends them to maintain formal relationship with the subordinates as compared to the managers in collectivist cultures. On the other hand, the employers in the collectivist cultural nations are found to maintain formal as well as informal relationship with the subordinates due to their emotional bonding (McWorthy and Henningsen, 2014). For instance, the management are found to be more personally connected with the subordinates outside the formal communication channel of the organisation. Hence, it can be seen that the superior-subordinate relationship in Australia and England is much stronger as compared to Asian countries, whereas the management of the organisations in these two countries only focuses on maintaining formal relationship in place of getting emotionally attached with the co-workers. Managing teams Team management is a key factor for the successful management of a large organisation that operates in different parts of the world. However, in terms of cultural, the management of team and the strategies of international HR managers vary from one country to another (Hansen, Hope and Moehler, 2012). In other words, cultural behaviour and practices of the managers plays an essential role in team management in various nations of the world. For instance, the people of Western cultures like to work individually as compared to the people of Asian countries (Glinkowska, 2016). Hence, the effort made by the management to work as a group or team is highly evident in the Asian culture as compared to the Western cultures. According to Glinkowska (2016), the people with high collectivist cultural marking are found to love working as a team. Hence, managing team in collectivist culture is quite easier due to the personal behaviour and psychology of the employees. As the employees with collectivist nature can adjust easily in a team, a higher level of productivity can be evident from group work. On the other hand, people from individualistic culture are more focused on personal goals and objectives. Irrespective of working in a group or team, the employees of individualistic cultures are intended to personal objectives and lack personal attitudes that is important to work in a team (Hansen, Hope and Moehler, 2012). Hence, the management of organisations in individualistic cultures need to make more effort in order to manage team work and influence the employees to work together for a common objective by keeping aside personal goals. On the basis of the above discussion and the Hofstedes Cultural Dimension framework, Australia and the United Kingdom falls under the same category of high individualism that makes it difficult for the management of the organisations in these countries to manage team work (Hansen, Hope and Moehler, 2012). However, with increase in the number of people from foreign cultures, a multicultural population has been formed in both the nations (Glinkowska, 2016). On the other hand, team work has emerged to be an effective strategy to seek success in the current competitive business environment. Hence, the management of the organisations in both the nations need to make a higher level of effort in order to influence the employees by establishing corporate culture to manage team work. Conclusion By considering the above analysis, it can be seen that the cultural similarities between Australia and England leads to a higher level of similarities processes and organisational culture in the firms in both the nations. Moreover, the process of communication, decision making, managing teams are in some cases similar in nature. Alternatively, there are certain differences in the managerial processes that can be evident due to the differences in masculinity, long term orientation and uncertainty avoidance. It can be seen that Australian organisations are more focused on short term goals, uncertainty avoidance and feminist power as compared to the management processes of the organisations in the United Kingdom. However, in terms of organisation culture, the firms in Australia and England possess same cultural attributes and practices due to the similarities in the cultural dimensions. Hence, it becomes easier for managers of Australia to control the human resources of the organisation s in the United Kingdom and vice versa due to the high level of similarities in organisational culture and management practices. References Barrett, B. (2013). Sufficiently Important Difference.Medical Decision Making, 33(6), pp.869-874. De Cremer, D. (2016). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership.The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), pp.79-93. Frank, B., Enkawa, T. and Schvaneveldt, S. (2015). The role of individualism vs. collectivism in the formation of repurchase intent: A cross-industry comparison of the effects of cultural and personal values.Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, pp.261-278. Gastil, J. (2014). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Productivity and Satisfaction of Democratic and Autocratic Leadership.Small Group Research, 25(3), pp.384-410. Glinkowska, B. (2016). Managing Teams in the Multicultural Organizations.Journal of Intercultural Management, 8(2). Goodhew, G., Cammock, P. and Hamilton, R. (2015). Managers' cognitive maps and intra?organisational performance differences.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), pp.124-136. Gupta, S. and Bhaskar, A. (2016). Doing business in India: cross-cultural issues in managing human resources.Cross Cultural Strategic Management, 23(1), pp.184-204. Hansen, T., Hope, A. and Moehler, R. (2012). Managing Geographically Dispersed Teams: From Temporary to Permanent Global Virtual Teams.SSRN Electronic Journal. Hoffman, R. and Klein, G. (2017). Challenges and Prospects for the Paradigm of Naturalistic Decision Making.Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(1), pp.97-104. Hofstede, G. (2013). Culture's consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage. Horwitz, F. (2011). Future HRM challenges for multinational firms in Eastern and Central Europe.Human Resource Management Journal, 21(4), pp.432-443. Jankov, H. and Magdolen, ?. (2013). Creative Impact Measure of Cros Cultural Managerial Apects.Creative and Knowledge Society, 3(2). Kidd, J. (2011). Discovering inter?cultural perceptual differences in MNEs.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(2), pp.106-126. Ledimo, O. (2015). Diversity Management: An Organisational Culture Audit To Determine Individual Differences.Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31(5), p.1733. Lundberg, C. (2010). Surfacing Organisational Culture.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5(4), pp.19-26. Mann, F. (2010). Changing Superior-Subordinate Relationships.Journal of Social Issues, 7(3), pp.56-63. Marshall, T. (2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualismcollectivism.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), pp.143-168. Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M., Preston, K., Brown, B. and Kupperbusch, C. (2007). Context-Specific Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism on the Individual Level.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), pp.743-767. Maude, B. (2016).Managing cross-cultural communication. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan Education. McWorthy, L. and Henningsen, D. (2014). Looking at Favorable and Unfavorable Superior-Subordinate Relationships Through Dominance and Affiliation Lenses.International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), pp.123-137. Moran, R., Abramson, N. and Moran, S. (2014).Managing cultural differences. 1st ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Nicolas, C. (2009). Determining the impact of organisational culture on organisational learning.International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2), p.208. Smolka, A. (2010). Cultural Diversity and Theoretical Differences: Perspectives and Difficulties in (Cross-cultural) Psychology.Culture Psychology, 6(4), pp.477-494. Tarim, T. (2013). Managing technical professionals: managing remote teams.IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), pp.3-4. Trent, S., Patterson, E. and Woods, D. (2007). Challenges for Cognition in Intelligence Analysis.Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), pp.75-97. Triandis, H. (2013). Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes.Cross-Cultural Research, 27(3-4), pp.155-180. Wickham, M. and Parker, M. (2007). Reconceptualising organisational role theory for contemporary organisational contexts.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), pp.440-464. Yavas, B. and Rezayat, F. (2013). The Impact of Culture on Managerial Perceptions of Quality.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), pp.213-234. Ye, Q. (2010). Does culture matter? The impact of cultural differences on VC-CEO interaction.International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12(1), p.70. Ziolkowski, D. (2015). Managing a Diverse Workforce.Journal of Library Administration, 21(3-4), pp.47-62.