Crossvergence and Cultural Tendencies: A Longitudinal Test

Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: A longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States Banking Sectors Crossvergence in a Period of Dynamic. Turbulent Cultural Change: Assessing The Kelley, MacNab, And Worthley Study The nuances and subtle shifts in a culture as a result of globalization is a paradox for many enterprises to manage over time and also for shot nations to anticipate and plan for economic, political and social shifts over time.

As globalization continues to accelerate the integration and assimilation of diverse cultures together, the long-standing cultural frameworks including Hofstede's Model of Cultural Dimensions increasingly appears unable to capture cultural nuances effectively, and often, due to its structure, generalize differences between cultures (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). One of the most valuable lessons learned from the Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley study is that there are often significant nuances and differences in the five cultural dimensions within a region, which are unaccounted for using dated frameworks and concepts (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006).

The most powerful aspect of crossvergence is that the five cultural dimensions as defined by Hofstede are analyzed from a more dynamic, mercurially-changing framework and foundation, which is in reality how cultures are evolving today. Crossvergence, as the authors of the study suggest, illustrates that as local and regional economies develop, interact and evolve there is a collaborative series of effects between the culture itself and the enterprise or business operating there, in addition to adjacent cultures affected by the continual change (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006).

The reality is that cultural changes are more abrupt and significant than legacy models suggest. Critical Analysis Of The Kelley, MacNab, And Worthley Study The empirical research in the study clearly supports a more eclectic, highly volatile view of cultural change, providing ample evidence across the five cultural dimensions of the Hofstede Model. The researchers have illustrated this volatility by showing the paradoxical values of collectivism in the United Status vs.

China, where in the former case this value was considered low within the Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). By taking a more nuanced approach to measuring collectivism using the constructs and frameworks as defined by the study's authors, these differences in collectivism and the ironic aspects of Hong Kong being more similar to the U.S. than China could be found.

As ancillary studies have shown, knowledge transfer across widely varying cultures is more effective when it is contextual in nature as these commonalities of perception of time, values and norms create a bond of trust (Sarala, Vaara, 2010). The contextuality of cultural nuances is evident in how well the differences between regions on the same continent are shown in the Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley study (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). This aspect of contextual intelligence is lacking in previous frameworks.

Crossvergence creates a more agile architecture for ensuring higher level of cultural congruency as well, even when the cultures being interrelated to either in an organization or through political alliances are geographically dispersed (Gupta, Wang, 2004). This orientation of how cultures actually operate in turn generates more acuity of insight and value for differences in the defining of authority roles, creation of more effective gender equality initiatives and the development of more sensitive and culturally-aware religious and ethnic responses to cultural conditions (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006).

One of the most powerful examples of work culture alignment and congruity from the study is in how the gradual impact of time perception, collectivism and power distance gradually changes work cultures in China and Hong Kong (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). Further showing the impact of crossvergence, it is ironic that the U.S. And China show, through statistical examples, to more closely aligned that Taiwan and Hong King (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006).

This further illustrates the dynamics of crossvergence not being locationally constrained (Gupta, Wang, 2004) and more attuned to shared workflows and knowledge sharing (Sarala, Vaara, 2010). The work perspective also has an associated aspect with regard to how the perception of time varies by a given culture's expectations, experiences and values. A foundational element of the methodology is the comparison of cultural attributes over time, which shows the most paradoxical aspects of the study, namely the shift in collectivism and contrarian views of national culture.

Time itself is valued very differently across cultures, illustrating how understanding and acting on values, both quantifiable and unquantifiable, are critical to understanding and managing the nuances of differences between cultures. This aspect of crossvergence is most evident in scenarios where mergers and acquisitions are being completed, and two diverse corporate cultures, exacerbated by differences in broader societal culture, are quickly pushed together (Sarala, Vaara, 2010).

These time variations are also evident in how the study shows how nuances on the same continent, if not paid attention to and managed, can drift farther than those between nations who share common perceptions yet are thousands of miles from each other (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). Authority and gender are two additional areas that crossvergence illustrates greater alignment to than traditional means of navigating cultural differences.

Power distance, a critical element of authority in cultural analysis, indicates how stratification of a financial institution affects employee morale and the willingness to tolerate differences on this dimension relative to one's culture (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006). Crossvergence analysis was able to capture the nuances in differences between Chinese and U.S. managers in banking institutions, finding how shifts in this specific attribute change over time (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley, 2006).

In highly competitive cultures, it is surprising to see this level of cooperation on such a potentially divisive dimension of a given culture. Yet the results show how critical it is to use crossvergence to understand nuances very clearly and accurately. Conclusion Crossvergence.