Cross Culture Perspective Essay
Cross-Cultural Perspective ETH 316 4/4/2013 LOU WOLNER Cross-Cultural Perspective In this paper, I will address Global organization and a cultural issue that affects organizations outside the United States - Cross Culture Perspective Essay introduction. Culture is about the way we human beings definite ourselves for the purpose of uniting with one another, forming a group, determining an individuality and distinctive ourselves as unique. Cultural perspective is sensual in humans, in which we create activities, practices, and symbols that can be easily consumed by our sense. In this entire good example, we still have cultural issues in our global organizations and society.
The global organization, have choosing to talk about is “Cross-Cultural solution”. Cultural Issues within Global Organization Cultural issues are define as the dispute in government and society based on differences of culture and origin (http://www. wikipedia. org/cultural issues). To build a truly great, global business, business leaders need to adopt a global standard of ethical practices. The reality of today’s global organizations is that organizational culture must recognize cultural diversity. Social norms create differences, values and attitudes about similar circumstances also vary from country to country.
More Essay Examples on Ethics Rubric
Since the process of determining an organizational culture often involves considerable “education,” Managers should be sensitive to global differences in approaches to education to make sure their cultural education efforts are effective . Organizational culture has a history and a structure, and that is how it can remain unchanged for a long time despite the coming and going of any employee or even of all employees within it. It is born out of the experience of the situations when internal and external precisions actions upon the organization were dealt with.
Culture is an integrant part of the process of selecting personal options. It influences what the organization feels, its concerns and its ability to deal with problems. Organizational culture is a force that allowed a series of large companies, like IBM, Delta Airlines, Kodak, Ford successful corporations. Culture analysis and management action diagnosis must take place on the permanent basis of observing and studying the behavior that indicates the prevailing norms and values of a society. For example, US nationals typically are fairly individualistic, have a lower than average aversion to risk, and cope well with ambiguity.
Consequently, an employee reward scheme within a US-only company (allowing for industry specific factors) might be based on standards linked to initiative, risk-taking and individual performance as well as to team or group objectives. However, if the company then applies exactly the same reward scheme to its divisions in Germany it might run into problems. German nationals generally have a lower tolerance for ambiguity and risk than their American counterparts, and they place more importance on definable technical abilities.
They are therefore less likely to be motivated by a system that offers most reward for initiative and risk-taking. This particular reward system might also run into problems within the company’s divisions in Korea, where group performance is going to be valued more highly than individual achievement. Because such differences can exist among cultures, managers of the global organization may choose instead to develop reward systems that are in line with the different national cultures.
This might solve the problem of how to align employee behavior with corporate strategy, but other problems may result from the difficulty of comparing performance across different systems. For example, if the parent company wants to make a comparative evaluation of the skills and effectiveness of managers in different countries, what criteria should it use when the management incentives and rewards are based on country-specific factors? Having country-specific reward systems may also prove problematic if workers from one country are transferred to the company’s operations in another country.
Ignoring language barriers, communication could pose very real problems for the unwary expatriate US manager. For example, a lack of public disagreement with a proposal or idea may not mean that there is general agreement. In Germany, public criticism of a higher-level decision is frowned upon. In Korea, the importance of ‘face’ also means that public criticism of any kind is avoided. At the same time, Korean nationals often have an indirect way of communicating, so that the real meaning of “yes” and “no” may be different in different situations.
The expatriate US manager must be aware of these differences and try to find more reliable methods of getting opinions on ideas and proposals. Communication differences also have to be taken into account by the expatriate US manager giving feedback to host nation employees. German nationals tend to be more literal and to take things more at face value than their American counterparts. In general, therefore, feedback on performance should also be very precise and literal, and based on clearly defined, unambiguous standards rather than on subjective criteria.
The importance of ‘face’ in many Asian cultures dictates that any negative feedback or criticism there should be given in private, a nicety that may not always be applied in the US workplace. In conclusion, As more and more companies move outside their home nations it becomes a matter of routine to evaluate the impact of such expansion on functional areas and product lines, and to find ways of taking advantage of an increasingly homogenous global marketplace. However, global businesses must go beyond this and recognize that their internal systems and structures are now being applied to a more heterogeneous workforce.
In such a situation, internal standardization may be positively harmful, particularly when applied to employee reward and incentive systems. These companies must also make an honest assessment of their managers’ ability to operate effectively within this more diverse and challenging environment. The skill-set needed for successful management in the home nation may need to be supplemented or even completely overhauled if it is to be of use within the global organization. The bottom line is that good ethics is good business.
There is a direct correlation between behaving ethically and creating long-term shareholder value. Furthermore, high integrity in external business dealings goes hand in hand with creating greater transparency and increased integrity in internal relationships. This necessitates choosing leaders who are not only ethical themselves but also committed to ensuring their organizations operate ethically at all times. References George, B. (February 2008). Ethics Must Be Global, Not Local. Retrieved from http://http://www. businessweek. com/stories/2008-02-12/ethics-must-be-global-n