As the national and regional cultures form a broad base of expectations of how important commitments and their fulfillment are and how their importance varies by culture, the individual relationships of managers in outsourcing provider and client companies also goes through a fine-tuning process on how deadlines of projects are handled. It is common knowledge that one of the most difficult aspects of attaining CQ is overcoming the major differences in the perception of time between national and organizational cultures. For CQ to realize its full potential, measures of cultural variation need to also be included in the learning sequences, syllabus design and continual reinforcement of concepts and practical application. The Hofstede Five Cultural Dimensions Model (Hofstede, 1983) is commonly used specifically for this part of ensuring managers and their team attains a high level of understanding as they are given instruction and coaching on how to increase their CQ levels.
Hofstede's Contributions to Cultural Intelligence
In analyzing how country cultures vary on the five cultural dimensions Hofstede uses in his Cultural Dimensions Model there are insights for managers looking to increase their CQ levels as well. As a result of its insightful analysis of cultural dimensions, the Five Cultural Dimensions Model (Hofstede, 1983) quantifies the differences between two or more national cultures. Geert Hofstede specifically created this framework to measure cultural variations between nations with the intent of assisting IBM executives assimilate faster into other cultures. The implications of his Five Cultural Dimensions however have become much more pervasive in the study of emerging economies, specifically Asian and Indian-based ones where outsourcing partners are pervasive (Hofstede, 2007). The Five Cultural Dimensions of Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity, (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), and Long-Term Orientation (LTO) comprise the index and when the United States is compared to India for example the following results are produced. Using the scaling application provided on http://www.geert-hofstede.com/Figure 2 was produced. The United States and India are compared on the five dimensions.
The Five Cultural Dimensions Analysis Applied to the U.S. And India
The most significant differences are in the IDV Dimension, which is the extent to which individuals are integrated into groups. In India affiliation and collectivism is much more important than in the U.S. For example. According to Hofstede (1983) the lower the IDV score the more there is a strong sense of individuality throughout the given country while the higher the score the greater amount of collectivism or strength of group affiliation. In the case of the differences between India having a high level of collectivism, products would need to be launched and positioned as contributing to the greater good. There is a definite egalitarian type of dynamic in India as evidenced by the Hofstede data. Conversely in the U.S. The sense of individuality is quite strong ands the level of affiliation is low. As a result, the leadership strategies aimed at increasing and sustaining the level of EQ needs to concentrate on managing Indian subordinates to their specific unique strengths while concentrating on their need for a degree of latitude and egalitarianism in how they are managed.
While the level of affiliation need vs. individuality is the most significant across the two countries used in this example, there are significant differences to their Power Distance Index (PDI), while similarities in Masculinity, (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) scores. This translates into managerial approaches on the part of American managers leading Indian-led teams to pay particular attention to alleviating or at least significantly reducing uncertainty combined with a long-term orientation in how they manage these Indian subordinates. On these factors the cultures of the U.S. And India are congruent. The critical focus on long-term value and risk avoidance on the part of a U.S.-based management team would do better than one that promised fast yet unsustainable results.
The critical aspect of using the Hofstede...
While this discussion has concentrated on American managers responsible for leading Indian subordinates, the converse is certainly seen in the analysis as well.
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is essential for any manager or professional to continue growing their career in the 21st century as globalization has become a market dynamic influencing nearly everyone daily. The need for cross-collaboration with companies whose internal organizational cultures and national cultures vary significantly from each makes CQ a critical prerequisite for anyone looking to make contributions in a global working environment. The focus on outsourcing providers and clients, paralleling the myriad of relationshuips between India and the U.S., has been used as the basis of comparison throughout this paper. The use of Hofstede's Five Cultural Dimensions Model (Hofstede, 1983) for providing insightful analysis to managers looking to optimize their levels of CQ as they interact with other nations' organizations is critical. Variations in the perception of the five dimensions as evidenced by how foreign companies interact with each other, communicate both verbally and non-verbally, and work to accomplish key tasks are all based on cultural variations in communication. Having insights into how these variations influence management and the attainment of CQ over time is critical for collaboration to accomplish shared objectives.
Soon Ang, Andrew C. Inkpen. (2008). Cultural Intelligence and Offshore Outsourcing Success: A Framework of Firm-Level Intercultural Capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3), 337. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1525189081).
Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, Christine Koh. (2006). Personality Correlates of the Four-Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100-123. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 979650241).
Kerri Anne Crowne (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391. Retrieved December 20, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1538583981).
Earley, P.C. (2002) 'Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: moving forward with cultural intelligence', in B.M. Staw and R.M. Kramer (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior 24: 271-299, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Christopher Earley, Elaine Mosakowski. (2004, October). Cultural Intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 139-146. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 701182111).
Thomas Grisham, Derek H.T. Walker. (2008). Cross-cultural leadership. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 439-445. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1550300251).
Hofstede, Geert (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4), 411-420. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1331990621).
Hofstede, Geert (1983). National Cultures in Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences Among Nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1,2), 46. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1142450).
Maddy Janssens, Jeanne M. Brett. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Global Teams: A FUSION MODEL of COLLABORATION. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153. Retrieved December 21, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 979650181).
James P. Johnson, Tomasz Lenartowicz, Salvador Apud. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 525-543. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1078016611).
Melewar, Claes Vemmervik. 2004. International advertising strategy: A review, reassessment and recommendation. Management Decision 42, no.…
Rather, the organizations or the future will have to create mutual dependencies and new organizations structures that enable networks of management and "virtual" or "boundary less" organizational structures that facilitate organizational effectiveness in the "turbulent" business environment (Mccann, 2004: 42). This means that organizations must become more agile to act more decisively, cultivating and aligning resources more quickly and creating and transforming as well as sharing knowledge more efficiently (Mccann,
Global Environment Thousands of companies compete in the global environment. Some of the most prominent global companies are Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Nestle, Honda, Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch InBev, and HSBC. These companies all operate in different industries, and many are based outside of the United States. For companies, operating in the global environment gives them access to a wide range of customers, providing not only growth opportunities but geographic diversification. Global presence can
Managing in a Global Environment International market growth has become a significant priority for a large number of companies. Therefore it has become necessary to create a strategy that makes the company compete with effectiveness in global markets to become successful. The company would have to create a strong competitive base in a wide range of disparate markets keeping in mind competition that is bound to arise from regional and local
With the will of the board of directors, anything can actually be achieved within the company. Having referred to General Electrics, there were two issues that Jack Welch wanted accomplished, as mentioned in his own autobiography: removal of bureaucracy and a certain restructuring of the business. Even if believed impossible to realize, through methods and concepts such as "boundaryless" or the Six Sigma formula, Jack Welch implemented change despite
International Management: Managing Global Virtual Teams The global fiber optic network and the internet have played a key role in the development of long-distance communication, which has facilitated work interactions among people from all over the world. It offers global platforms through which people can, at the touch of a button, share work and knowledge, compete, play and collaborate with colleagues across national borders. The creation of virtual teams is one
Balanced Scorecard The global environment continues to be very contentious as organizations compete for market share around the world. As business continues to become more integrated, it is necessary to have standardized rules and processes. This standardization however must be adapted to fit local constituency within a given market. The balance scorecard is no different in this regard. A balanced scorecard allows businesses to better ascertain their particular strengths within a