Managerial Styles in different cultures

Claire OkaforStudent number: 10347021

Cross Cultural Management Assignment

Date: 13th January 2011

Tutor: Jon Stephens Word Count: 3,035

January 13, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The success of an International joint-venture can be attained if a good knowledge of the

country is known. The meeting of managers from France, Germany and Netherlands is an

interesting. Taking two models of culture (Hofstede and Trompenaars), we see France having a

close trait of individualism and uncertainty avoidance with Germany while Netherlands is quite

far from this. Other issues pointed out by Trompenaars shows differences and similarities in

these three countries, which can make decision making difficult. But with suggestion of scholars

on how these differences can be solved we realize that training mangers from respective

countries on communication, negotiation and allocation of roles, release of information to

encourage trust can be of help to minimize tension in business transactions and projects.

| Page 2

January 13, 2011

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4

2. HOFSTEDE AND TROMPENNARS CULTURAL PROFILING..................................................................5

2.1 INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM...........................................................................................5

2.1 MASCULINITY- FEMININTY...........................................................................................................5

2.2 POWER DISTANCE......................................................................................................................6

2.3 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE..........................................................................................................7

2.4 LONG AND SHORT TERM ORIENTATION......................................................................................7

3. TROMPENAARS AND TURNER..........................................................................................................8

3.1 UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM....................................................................................8

3.2 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM..........................................................................8

3.3 SPECIFIC VERSUS DIFUSSED.........................................................................................................9

3.4 ACHIEVED VERSUS ASCRIBED.....................................................................................................10

3.5 EQUALITY VERSUS HIERACHY.....................................................................................................10

3.6 INNER DIRECTED VERSUS OUTER DIRECTED ORIENTATION.......................................................11

3.7 TIME AS SEQUENCE VERSUS TIME AS SYNCHRONISATION........................................................11

4 PART B...........................................................................................................................................11

5 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................13

APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................14

HOFSTEDE CULTURAL DIMENSION........................................................................................................14

MAP OF FRANCE....................................................................................................................................14

MAP OF GERMANY............................................................................................................................15

MAP OF NETHERLANDS.........................................................................................................................15

References.............................................................................................................................................16

| Page 3

January 13, 2011

1. INTRODUCTION

People in oragnisations are often influenced by different factors, but culture is a major

determinant. It influences people’s orientation, from different parts of the world (Mead, 2005).

When people from different cultures meet, there might be similarities and differences, which

can make interaction between them to be complex. Communication, decision-making, team

work and negotiation were suggested by the author, as a means to bridge the gap between the

cultural differences.

This report investigated the meeting of three managers from different cultures and countries.

These countries were Germany, France and Netherlands. Two main profiling models namely:

Hofstede and Trompenaars were explored.

(Hofstede, 1980 cited in Tayeb 2003) illustrated the four dimensions of Hofstede cultural

profiling model. These dimensions were:

Individualism and Collectivism

Masculinity-Femininity

Uncertainty avoidance

Power distance and

Long and short term orientation.

On the other hand, another cultural profiling model was suggested by Trompenaars and Turner

(Mead, 2005), which showed seven dimensions of cultures as follows:

Universalism,

Analysed- specifics,

Individualism,

Inner-directedness,

Time as a sequence,

Achieved status and

Equality.

| Page 4

January 13, 2011

2. HOFSTEDE AND TROMPENNARS CULTURAL PROFILING

2.1 INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

Hodggets and Luthans, (2000) show cases Hofstede cultural dimension as being wealth related

in nature. They emphasised that richer countries are individualistic in nature. Though Germans

and French are individualistic, Dutch are much more individualistic in nature than Germans and

French (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). These three countries have close similarities in their

managerial styles, although Germans have the lowest score of 67, followed by France 71 and

Netherlands 83 (Trompenar, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005). Managers from these countries will

tend to respects their colleagues rights and achievements, uphold their respective decisions

(this indicates that a joint decision process might be complex (Mead, 2005). The author further

emphasised that, these managers will expect loyalty and hard work from themselves as they

belief that a high reward is as a result of hard work. Also, German and French mangers will aim

varieties when making decisions But Netherland managers will aim at a wide range of varieties

rather than conformity.

2.1 MASCULINITY- FEMININTY

Countries with high masculinity tend to emphasize on making profits and are task oriented

Mead, (2005). They have high regards for individual achievements, (Hoddgets and Luthans,

2000). These countries reserve some specific occupations for men and others for women.

Managers of countries with high masculinity believe that money is the source for motivation

(Mead, 2005).

Mean while countries with high level of feminity stresses on social relationships in working

areas (Mead, 2005). He further emphasized that there are no specific occupations reserved for

women or men in countries with high level of feminity. Hodgets and Luthans, (2000) is of the

view that managers from countries with high feminity encourages individualistic decisions.

Mead, (2005) rated illustrates countries with high level of masculinity, where Germany, France

and Dutch have high level of masculinity scoring 66, 43 and 14 respectively. This shows that

there might be slight conflicts when mangers from these countries will have slight conflicts

| Page 5

January 13, 2011

when meeting as countries like Germany have a high level of masculinity than the other two.

Showing that, the French manager’s are task, target and profit oriented in nature.

Furthermore the German mangers will place the shareholders interest in high esteem as they

believe that shareholders satisfaction is paramount (Schiedner and Barsoux, 2003). Meanwhile

Netherlands believe in social relationships and tend not to regard money as a motivator. On the

other hand, French managers will have common views with Germans although they do not

have high level of masculinity as the Germans. Managers from Netherlands will not be

comfortable with German and French managers if they meet with female managers from these

countries. As Netherlands belief that certain occupations are reserved for women (Mead,

2005).

2.2 POWER DISTANCE

Tayeb, (2003) described power distance as the degree of acceptance to unequal power

distribution of members of a society. Although the distribution of power differs in countries,

there are some with high and low regard for power (Mead, 2005). Out of the three countries

France is seen with a high power distance, scoring 68, while Germany and Netherlands score 35

and 38 respectively (Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005). When mangers of these

countries meet, the French managers, having high power distance will want to dominate as

they have a high regard for hierarchy unlike Germans and Netherlands who have low regard

for hierarchy (Schneider and Barsoux , 2003). French will want decision making to be

centralised while Germans and Netherlands will want decisions to be made in a decentralized

manner as they belief that subordinates should be involved in decision making (Mead, 2005).

He further illustrates that, the French manager will expect the other mangers to be autocratic

in decision making as they believe those in managerial positions should see themselves as

munificent decision makers unlike Germans and Netherlands who admit that mangers need

support and ought to make decisions in a involuntary way. Schneider and Barsoux,(2003) sees

this as uncomfortable to the French manger as he sees the Germans and Dutch as being

bureaucratic in decision making. Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) illustrates that French mangers

| Page 6

January 13, 2011

will want a close supervision on the project as they belief that power and status are motivators

in achieving the project or organizational objectives. Unlike managers from Germany and

Netherlands who lay emphasis on formal rules and regulations as a route to achieving good

results (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Germans also stress that the working environment

should be mutually dependent unlike the French (Mead, 2005).

2.3 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) present the French and German managers as having a degree of

uncertainty avoidance. These managers tend to have a high sense of security and are unwilling

to take risk, unlike the manager from Netherlands who have a low uncertainty

avoidance .Tayeb,(2003) illustrates that the Netherlands manager see uncertainty as a room

for innovations . Mead, (2005) points out that Netherlands manager will suppress his emotions

on certain issues unlike the French and Germans. Also, French and German managers expect

excellent skills and knowledge on the project and are more willing to take responsibilities of

their actions, unlike Netherlands managers (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). With this the (French

and Germans) prefer to have a clear description of their jobs (Mead, 2005).

2.4 LONG AND SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

French and German managers are long term oriented although not at high degree. They have a

good regard for endurance and belief in having good relationships with colleagues (Mead,

2005). The author also pointed out that Dutch manager is unstable and tend to protect their

faces unlike the French and German managers who have a sense of shame. Dutch managers will

like to exchange cards during business and will appreciate gifts as a good way of starting a good

relationship. This is not so with his colleagues. Also Barsoux and Scheidner, (2003) is of the view

that Germans and French managers are critical thinkers and tend to expect profit from business

in a long period unlike the Dutch manger.

| Page 7

January 13, 2011

3. TROMPENAARS AND TURNER

3.1 UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM

Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) is of the opinion that countries with which have a high level of

universalism often observe formal rules in legal and business transactions. While countries

with high level of particularism tend not lay much emphasis on formal rules but they hold

friendship and trust for each other in high esteem. Among the three countries Germany has a

high score for universalism, followed by Netherlands and France, scoring 90, 88 and 68

respectively (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). This shows that managers from these countries have

similar traits but that does not mean that there might not be differences among them.

However, managers from these three countries have the culture characteristics of having close

adherence to business contracts and adjusting rules in contracts as the need arises. Also these

managers, hold fast to deals though a better knowledge of colleagues can influence the way

deals are implemented. Mead, (2005) shows a situation from Trompenaars demonstrating that

managers from Germany and Netherlands have the tendency of friends influencing them of not

following set rules, if this might implicate them of breaking laws. But this does not mean that

they have a high level of that trait. The author further illustrates a situation of business secrecy.

German and Netherlands managers keep business secreats even of it might implicate a

colleague but French managers have the tendency of not keeping business secreats especially

when it might implicate a friend. This can be judged from their scores of 66, 62 and 56

respectively. Mead, (2005) points up that these three countries have no rationalities for legal

cultures.

3.2 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM

Though authors like Hofstede have showed one of the cultural dimensions as individualism

versus collectivism, it is similar to Trompenaars view. Hodgetts and Luthans, (2000) pointed out

some major aspects of Trompenaars view on Individualism and communitarianism which

differentiates it from Hofstede opinion.

| Page 8

January 13, 2011

People from individualistic countries consider themselves as individuals while people from

Communitarian countries consider themselves as individuals (Hodggetts and Luthans, 2000).

Managers from Germany, France and Netherlands are individualistic in nature. The authors are

of the view that managers from these countries will assume personal responsibilities carrying

out a project and assume big salaries for big responsibilities. Also, when having negotiations

representatives are expected to be highly skilled for a managerial status, they and the decisions

from negotiations are expected to be taken on the spot.

However, Mead, (2005) illustrates Trompenaars opinion saying that a manager from

Netherland will lay emphasis on individuals taking responsibilities to improve the quality of life

of other individuals not mindful of freedom hindrances. But this is not the case for managers

from France and Germany. The French manager will expect that the other managers to be more

dedicated to the project while maintaining a good relationship (Trompenaars 1997, cited in

Mead, 2005).

3.3 SPECIFIC VERSUS DIFUSSED

Countries that are specific in nature share their public spaces but tend to protect private spaces

and only share it with those having closeness with them. Mean while countries that are diffuse

in nature share their public spaces without pains (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). The authors

further illustrates that Managers from countries that are specific in nature do not have a close

relationship with their work life and private life. While managers from diffuse cultures, have a

close relationship with work and private life (managers from France, Germany and Netherlands

are diffuse in nature). These managers like to be addressed according to the role they play in

the society and status. They belief that, people and work, are not to be separated. When having

meeting the French and Netherlands will expect to go strait to the point but the German

manager might beat around the bush.

| Page 9

January 13, 2011

3.4 ACHIEVED VERSUS ASCRIBED

Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005 is of the view that ascribed are people who do not lay

emphasis on achievements while Ascribed are people who consider achievements of individuals

as a vital aspect of work .Hodgetts and Luthans pointed out that France, Germany and

Netherlands are not ascribed in nature .So if managers from these counties meet they will not

face challenges in assigning roles to themselves since they have similar traits of looking at the

achievements of their colleagues before assigning roles. Managers from these three countries

will always expect feedback from each other on how they have run their projects and what they

have achieved so far.

The author further explains that, managers from these countries will look at their abilities as

criteria to success. Also, manager from these countries regard hard work is the basis for success

as reward is based on achievements. Although France, Netherlands and Germany are similar in

this trait represents Germany and France as being highly achieved in nature than Netherlands

(Trompenaars, 1997 cited in Mead, 2005).

3.5 EQUALITY VERSUS HIERACHY

(Trompenaars 1997, cited in Mead, 2005) is of the view that France is hierarchical in nature but

their degree of hierarchy is not high as compared to communitarian society. The manager from

France will expect that they should be some sense of hierarchy when the project is carried out.

Unlike the manager from Netherland who sees equality as a good way of structuring an

organization or carrying out a project. On the other hand, the German manager is hierarchical

in nature but not as the French manager. The difference is that the German manager is more

social with the working environment. The German manager can easily disseminate information

about the projects unlike the French manager. Also, the manager from Netherlands will give

out information easily about the project as he beliefs every one is equal in a working

environment.

| Page 10

January 13, 2011

3.6 INNER DIRECTED VERSUS OUTER DIRECTED ORIENTATION

Cultures that are inner directed in nature belief that the control the environment and make use

of opportunities while cultures with outer directedness belief that the environment controls

them. (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2001)When managers from these three countries meet, German

managers will always convince their colleagues, to belief that they can control on the working

environment. Mean while the French manager will insist that the environment controls their

activities and fate determines the success of their project (Trompenaars 1997, cited in Mead,

2005). Also the manager from Netherlands will have similar views with the German manger.

Hodgets and Luthans, (2001) points out that the German and Netherlands manager might be

aggressive because they will always want to be in control believing that they control their

success or failure.

3.7 TIME AS SEQUENCE VERSUS TIME AS SYNCHRONISATION

Hodgetts and Luthans, (2001) points out that country differ in time orientation. Some are

sequential in nature and others are synchronic. Looking at the three countries in question,

these authors’ points out that the French manager is sequential in timing, portraying, that he is

very strict with time and schedules. This also applies to the German manager, but this is

different with the Dutch manager as he is not strict with time. The French and German manager

will follow schedules strictly and will not like to discuss or welcome interruptions outside the

schedule. Mean while, the manager from Netherlands does not follow the schedules strictly

and can always change time tables due to influence from close relationships. During working

hours he can always stop to greet friends but this is unwelcomed by the French and German

managers.

4 PART B

Germany, France and Netherlands have similarities which give them a better edge for business.

But at the same time, their differences can lead to complex issues which might hinder the

progress of the project.

| Page 11

January 13, 2011

The success of this project lies on the way the managers communicate skillfully and dedicate

themselves in working as a team.

Mead, (2005) is of the view that these managers can succeed as a team if the have good

communication skills, good expatriate training and proper organizational structuring.

Knowing that these managers come have different languages communication might slow down

the progress of the project. But this can be solved if the managers have a good language

training (Mead, 2005). If this proof difficult, the mangers can make use of translation machines

(Tayeb, 2003) the author emphasizes that these machines always be managed and monitored.

The manner of communication should be taken into consideration by the three mangers.

Managers from France and Germany will like to be talked to in respect of their status. The

manager from Netherlands should take note of this (Tayeb, 2003). Knowing the first way to

start the business communication is important. The Dutch prefer giving cards and gifts as a way

to start a good relationship in business. The German and French managers should accept that

as this is still better for a start.

If there is a female manager among this group the Dutch should tend to respect her as their

male counter pacts. The Dutch should respect her because she is well respected and

responsible enough to have been chosen as a representative (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000).

French and German managers should be patient with the Dutch managers when making

decisions. The Dutch are slow in making decisions. At the same time the Dutch managers

should not take advantage of that knowing that they have to be straight to the point in order to

save time (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2000). Also the Dutch should avoid over communication while

French and Germans should check the balance by avoiding under communication (Mead, 2005).

Leadership roles should be assigned respectively according to skills. The French and German will

always want to be the Boss. This might lead to the Dutch having feelings of lack of belonging.

The Dutch tend to suppress their emotions and this might not be noticed by Germans and

French (Mead, 2005).

| Page 12

January 13, 2011

French managers will always prefer a close supervision on the project unlike the Dutch and

Germans who belief that laid down rules and regulations lead to achieving goals. In this respect,

the main goal of the project should be detailed and strategic plans should be drawn on

performance check (Tayeb, 2003).

The way information is circulated and important documents released is to be spelled out. The

French have a tendency of keeping business secreats unlike the Dutch and Germans. This will

help to have a good level of trust amongst them, as trust is a motivator for maintaining good

relationship in business. At the same time Dutch managers should avoid unimportant messages

by giving quality to smooth information flow (Mead, 2005).

5 CONCLUSION

Mangers from the three countries should have good training on how to handle cultural

differences before they meet. Even during the project training can still be given. When sending

a representative, the person should be well qualified and should have a good knowledge of

cross cultural influences. Some one who has a good experience on international business and

has had a good experience on travelling should be asked to represent the company. Also they

should have an excellent plan, on what should be communicated and how it should be

communicated. It will be better if the three managers choose a common language, such as

French.

| Page 13

January 13, 2011

APPENDICES

HOFSTEDE CULTURAL DIMENSION

POWER MASCULINITY UNCERYAINTY

AVOIDANCE

INDIVIDUALISM LONG TERM ORIENTATION

GERMANY 35 66 65 67 31

FRANCE 38 14 53 83 31

NETHER-

LANDS

68 43 86 71 44

MAP OF FRANCE

| Page 14

January 13, 2011

MAP OF GERMANY

MAP OF NETHERLANDS

| Page 15

January 13, 2011

References

Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (2000) International Management. Cultural, Strategy and

Behaviour. 4th edition. London: Mc-Graw Hill.

Mead, R. (2005) International Management .Cross-cultural Dimensions .3rd edition. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

Schneidner, C. S. and Barsoux, J. (2003) Managing across Cultures, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson

education Limted.

Tayeb, M. (2003) International Management Theories and Practices, Harlow: Financial Times

Prentice Hall.

Trompenaars, F. (1997) Riding the waves of culture in: Mead, R. (2005) International

Management. Cross cultural Dimensions.3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Google (2011) Map of France [online]. Google Maps. Available from: www.maps.google.co.uk.

[Accessed 12th January 2011].

| Page 16