Research
based on cultural interpretations are gaining severe attention and are the
elements that are adding to the process of comprehending national cultures of
different nations for increasing the widespread importance in the international
business trends (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). A comparative analysis between the
practices of national cultures as led by Finland and China, offers an insight
into the process of understanding the cultural similarities and differences of
Western and Eastern worlds.
This
paper notes the cultural distances and the features that bridge gap between
Finland and China through analytical overview of GLOBE (Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) Model. The notable 9 dimensions of GLOBE
Model - Performance orientation, Uncertainty avoidance, In-Group
collectivism, Power distance, Gender egalitarianism, Humane
orientation, Institutional collectivism, Future orientation, and Assertiveness;
are the basic grounds for comparing the selected national cultures as in
Finland and China.
According
to the House, et al., (1997) the term culture gets defined as an approach whereby
people share similar values, motives, identities, believes and typical modes of
interpretations over common experiences. This is a general practice that
remains effective over the social, psychological, and even organisational
levels of a culture.
With
the increasing impact of globalisation, the above quoted definition suits best
in
considering the national cultures of different countries for developing successful organisational structure. Further illustrations are noted by House, et al., (2004) where the thematic concern of national culture depend on values scores counted from various practices. As for instance, businessmen in international trading valued or otherwise desired more status of gender egalitarianism as against their practical experiences. The research of House, et al noted that with high value score there is connectivity between low score in practice. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom of considering the behaviour of people in a determined manner as they follow some predetermined values with high esteem. However, if people accepts something with low degree, yet perceived as good, then the absence of the same can value it with more esteem, and vice versa (see Appendix 1). In this context, the nine dimensions forwarded by GLOBE model depended on values. The derivation of GLOBE model states that the idea of culture is integral to the social or organisational values (House, et al., 2004).
considering the national cultures of different countries for developing successful organisational structure. Further illustrations are noted by House, et al., (2004) where the thematic concern of national culture depend on values scores counted from various practices. As for instance, businessmen in international trading valued or otherwise desired more status of gender egalitarianism as against their practical experiences. The research of House, et al noted that with high value score there is connectivity between low score in practice. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom of considering the behaviour of people in a determined manner as they follow some predetermined values with high esteem. However, if people accepts something with low degree, yet perceived as good, then the absence of the same can value it with more esteem, and vice versa (see Appendix 1). In this context, the nine dimensions forwarded by GLOBE model depended on values. The derivation of GLOBE model states that the idea of culture is integral to the social or organisational values (House, et al., 2004).
GLOBE
(or Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) model attempts
to understand diversified cultures on the basis of the values that are noted in
the national language, demographic existence, followed historical heritage and
religion, of the nation. There are 9 cultural dimensions noted by GLOBE model
(see Appendix 2) that conceptualise the cultural practices and values of
different nations at organizational level and here, the selected nations are
Finland and China.
Application
of GLOBE model in case of Finland refers to the cluster of Nordic Europe,
including other Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark (Boopathi, 2014). The
image of maintaining cultural values among the Nordic nations appears to remain
punctual, modest, honest and comparatively high-minded (Gupta, et al., 2002).
In case of China, the application of GLOBE model derives that the
Chinese culture is more into the trend of economic growth. There is the
developmental structure that concentrates in adding sustainability to local
cultural traits along with financial stability (Garcia, et al., 2014). A
comparative analysis between Finland and China will bring out more advantageous
and risk-oriented points between the global approach of sharing cultures for
organisational growth.
Aspects
related to the deliverance of performance under collective approaches, intend
to encourage and further intends to reward members of the group in terms of
performing in a developed manner and with professional excellence (Javidan, et
al, 2006). Moreover, the inclination towards the idea of offering excellence to
performance reflects acceptance towards innovation by the respective nation.
Accumulation of higher standards and consistently developing performance
improvement are the result of cultural set up of the society (Javidan,
2004:239). However, as per the GLOBE model societies scoring high in this
dimension lay importance to results more than the employees or the population that
are serving the organisations. The declarations add that such societies remain
value assertive and highly competitiveness, with material importance. China
exemplifies this trend by following working hours that exceeds 8 hours routine
and creates the impression of high performance (Shi and Wang, 2011). On the
other hand, the nations that score low in this dimension are more concern in
developing the essence of belongingness and the maintenance of loyalty among
the employees and the people participating in organisational growth. The score
of Finland in this respect remains low with rigid working 8 hours with
result-oriented delivery of the work. Thus, this is considered as a nation that
is involved in the maintenance of environmental harmony (Boopathi, 2014).
The
context of uncertainty avoidance in a selected national culture and its
association to organisational approaches, aims in alleviating various instances
of unpredictability in context of future events. As illustrated
by Javidan, et al (2006) this is the dimension that lay importance to
the attitudes in people for orderliness, absolute structure and maintenance of
consistency. Nations scoring high on uncertainty avoidance depend
on formalized national procedures and policies, and further verifying
communications over records of writing, like Finland. As against in societies
with low score depend on informal modes of communication and norms, as in China
(House et.al. 2004).
The
implication of GLOBE model derives that Finland holds high score on uncertainty
avoidance, whereas China prefers to remain low in scoring for this dimension.
Consequently, Unilever representatives find that the aspects related to social
values and the practices as observed in the societies reveals the nation of
Finland as a stronger entity in avoiding uncertainty, as against Chinese
approach to the same (Paine, 2010). Finnish culture appears to be less
comfortable in terms of handling the instances of uncertainty in the
organisational set up and for the Chinese organisations; the approach is more
relaxing while dealing with various instances of business ambiguities (Javidan,
et al., 2006 and House et.al. 2004).
Considerations
noted under this dimension are for individual ways of expressing loyalty, the
sense of pride and adequate amount of cohesiveness with the family or an
organisation (Li, et al. 2010). The national cultures that hold high score in
this dimension are intend to have people who can maintain integrated standpoint
in terms of generating stronger forms of cohesive groups. On the other hand,
the national cultures that are scored low in terms of in-group collectivism
hold people who are capable of looking after themselves (House et.al, 2004).
Finland with higher scores in this dimension holds greater collectivism in
maintaining values, whereas China excels the Finland in maintaining societal
practices. China appears to be a collectivistic society that hols people with
the essence of gaining common good in-group, and the same leads to the team
works in organisational formulations. Finland rather prefers to have people
with more leadership qualities and strong decision-making capabilities
(Javidan, et al., 2006 and House et.al. 2004). Team works in
organisational set up are much appreciated, yet participation of individual
team members also remains under serious scrutiny in Finland (Boopathi, 2014).
The
dimension of power distance as led by GLOBE model refers to the membership
degree in a national culture that accepts the scope of power and the related
privileges in terms of stratifying higher levels (Li, et al., 2010). As per
GLOBE model, the nations that are with high score in maintaining power
distance, offers social order and adequate amount of relational harmony for
attaining stability in societal and organisational frontier. On the other hand,
the nations scoring low at this dimension considers the use of power as an
inevitable source for coercion, dominance, and corruption (House et al
2004:536). Chinese national culture holds this dimension at a lower score and
thus the elements of coercion, dominance, and corruption appear common to
Chinese society and organisations. On the contrary, the society and the
organisational practices maintained in Finland, score high, and remain less
hierarchical, where employees are independent to offer decisions and ideas for
organisational growth. It is in Chinese culture that the political dominance
and misuse of hierarchical structures are common, whereas Finland is still
independent enough in maintaining transparency with people involved in its
developments.
The
dimension of gender egalitarianism is related to the minimised range of
collective aspects in the frontier of gender equality. As per this dimension,
national cultures with lower scores in GLOBE model show greater domination of
the male and vice versa (Li, et al., 2010). The Finnish cultural set up as
assessed under this dimension show more hold of gender egalitarianism, as
against China. The societal practices in Chinese culture are male dominating,
whereas the Finnish society is free for women authoritative holds. Though as
noted by Shi and Wang (2011) things are changing in China and more
importance to gender equality gets initiated in the organisational and societal
values of China. However, as marked by Boopathi (2014), the Finnish
societal way of maintaining values is still at much higher rank than any other
nation in terms of gender egalitarianism. Global marketing scenarios are
definitely playing a great role in modifying the societal stand of maintaining gender
egalitarianism in the organisational sector. Since leaders from the western
organisations remains indiscriminate about genders, the same approach gets
obvious in all the nations that have western leadership traits (Posthuma, 2009).
This
dimension refers to the approach of gaining collective encouragements and
relevant rewards noted among the individuals, especially for remaining caring,
generous, fair, kind and altruistic to other human beings (Venaik and Brewer,
2008). The GLOBE model declares that the national cultures that follows a
society with the essence of high humane oriented values, remains inclusive of
love, kindness, benevolence, altruism and generosity. On the other hand, those
with low score in this dimension are subject to value the essence of comfort,
pleasure, and self-enjoyment (House at.al. 2004). Boopathi (2014) in this
assessment noted that Finland scores low in this dimension, whereas the score
of China as marked by Shi and Wang (2011 a) are slightly higher. This
refers to the derivation that the organisational set up and the maintenance of
cultural values in Chinese society is more concerned about the welfare of
people on humanitarian grounds. In case of Finland, the aim is to offer better
and comfortable lifestyles to the people, as per their efforts in contributing
towards regular growth of the nation or the organisation. Though there is a
similarity in considering human first in any developmental approach in both
Finland and China, yet the pressure of welfare appears more positive in Chinese
society than that of Finland.
The
assessment of national culture under this dimension of GLOBE model refers to a
determined point, whereby the organization and the society intent to follow
institutional practices. The idea is to encourage and further develop the
practice of rewarding collective distribution of the accumulated resources and
consequences (Javidan, et.al, 2006). This is a dimension that lay importance to
individual-encouragement in order to gain integrated and wide ranged entities
in maintaining harmony and adequate amount of cooperation in the social and
organisational set up. This however, is attained at the expense of individual
freedom or the considerations related to autonomy of the person in particular
(Javidan, et al., 2005). Finland appears high with its score under the
verifications initiated by the GLOBE model, whereas China is comparatively a
few points away from its rank (Javidan, et al., 2006 and House et.al.
2004). In case of Finland the aspects related to institutional culture is more
about having members with the assumption that they are very highly interdependent
in reference to the society or the organisation wherever they dwell. National
culture in Finland holds that it is fair enough to maintain societal practices
that are ‘way things are’, against the follow up of social values that is the
‘way things should be’, as in Chinese national culture.
National
cultures that are concerned about being future-oriented, are successful in
relating their individual participation in getting engaged with future
development of the society or the organisation (Javidan, et al., 2006). The
societies like Finland in this respect denotes planning approaches under
systematic persuasion of various projects (Javidan, et al., 2006). However, for
China though the society is very much future-oriented, yet in many aspects
lacks in gaining economic success (Venaik and Brewer, 2008). From the scores
attained by implementing GLOBE model, it can be clearly marked that Finnish
societal practices are highly rated for being future-orientated under strategic
formulations, though at the same time its societal values stand against this
score. China too shows contradictory scores in terms of maintaining societal
values and practices. Both these nations are concerned about their future and
are equally making efforts in meeting the norms of long-term growth. Thus,
though the scores vary, yet the efforts cannot be ignored.
This
dimension appears common in case of both Finnish and Chinese national cultures.
Both these cultures maintain high aspirations in terms of achieving assertive
growth ad sustainability. As per the scores gained from GLOBE model, Finland
scores low in terms of both societal practices and value maintenance. China too
scores very close to Finland, though comparatively little more (Venaik and
Brewer, 2008). This clarifies that the social values as noted by GLOBE model in
China appears to have higher aspects of assertiveness. This relevantly values the
edge of growing global competitiveness and aims in attaining success. Finland,
though scores low in the dimension of assertiveness, affirms adequate amount of
cooperation, maintenance of organisational transparency and positive working
environment (Grove, 2004 & House, 2004). It is necessary to note here
that, in both these national cultures the assertiveness is much preferred
though they score differently. Offer value to competition in the periphery of
globalisation is a compulsion for both these nations. The zeal and strategic
implementation of successful formulations too remain integral to the process of
growth and thus, are much accepted by the both these national cultures.
Eventually,
from the comparative analysis of the national cultures of Finland and China,
based on GLOBE model, it can be noted that the there are many points where
these nations differ from each other. Their outlook towards the understanding
of societal practices and values differ extensively. However, what makes these
culture appreciate each other, is in getting concerned about future growth and
confirming the dame with all assertion. The contrasts are much noted in
the dimensions of Uncertainty avoidance, In-Group collectivism, Power
distance, Gender egalitarianism, Humane orientation, Institutional
collectivism. On the other hand, when it comes to Performance
orientation, Future orientation, and Assertiveness, both
these cultures share similar enthusiasm. Both the cultures of Finland and China
are interested in adding growth and sustainability to their developmental
structures to the existence and in this pursuit, their values merge when it
comes to the process of delivering performance, planning for future and adding
assertions to their organisational escalation. This leads to the conclusion
that business between Finnish and Chinese national cultures is possible, only
of both the nations remain alert and absolute aware of their differences and
act in bridging the gap for global growth.
Boopathi,
S. N. (2014) A Detailed Comparison of Finland and India through Hofstede &
GLOBE Study. Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure
Management (GRRTHLM). An Online International Research Journal (ISSN:
2311-3189). 2014 Vol: 1 Issue 1
Garcia,
F., Mendez, D., Ellis, C. & Gautney, C. (2014) Cross-cultural, values
and ethics differences and similarities between the US and Asian
countries. Journal of Technology Management in China. Vol. 9,
no. 3, pp. 303-322.
Grove,
C. N. (2005) Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices:
Overview of GLOBE Research Findings. GROVEWELL LLC.
Gupta,V.,
Hanges,P.J., and Dorfman,P., 2002., Cultural clusters: methodology and
findings. Journal of World Business, 37 (2002) 11-15.
House,
R. J., Hanges, P. J., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage.
House,
R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M.,
Dickson, M. W., and Gupta, V. (1997). Cultural Influences on
Leadership: Project GLOBE. In Mobley, W. (Ed.), Advances In Global
Leadership, (Lead article, Vol. 1), JAI Press
Javidan,
M., Dorfman,P.W., Luque,M.S.De., and House, R. J., (2006) In the eye of the
beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from project GLOBE. Academy
of Management Executives.
Javidan,
M., Stahl, G.K., Brodbeck, F., and Wilderom,C.P.M., (2005) Cross-border
transfer of knowledge: Cultural lessons from Project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Executive, Vol 19, No 2.
Li
Y., Duncan P. and Green M. (2010). A Comparison of the Cultural Impacts
on Leadership Preferences between Overseas Chinese Petroleum Professionals and
GLOBE Scores. International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
Beijing, China.
Mooij
M., and Hofstede G.(2010). The Hofstede model Applications to global branding
and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of
Advertising, 29, 85-110.
Paine,
L. S. (2010) The Globe: The China Rules. International Business. Harvard
Business Review. Jun 2010 Issue.
Posthuma,
R. A. (2009) National Culture and Union Membership: A Cultural-Cognitive
Perspective. Industrial Relations, 64(3).
Shi,
X. and Wang, J. (2011 a) Cultural Distance between China and US across GLOBE
Model and Hofstede Model. International Business and Management.
Vol. 2, No. 1. 2011, pp. 11-17
Shi,
X. and Wang, J. (2011) Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way
to Go for Cross-Cultural Research? International Journal of Business
and Management Vol. 6, No. 5; May 2011
Venaik
S. and Brewer, P. A. (2008). Contradictions in national culture:
Hofstede vs GLOBE. In: Cantwell, J. and Kiyak, T.. 50th Annual Meeting
of the Academy of International Business (AIB), 50, 274-274. Milan, Italy
No comments:
Post a Comment