跨企业跨文化英文_企业管理_经管营销_专业资料.doc

题目名称 东盟背景下跨国企业的跨文化管理 系 （部） _ 专 业 班 级 _ 学 号 _ 姓 名 指导教师 2014年7月1日ASEAN multinational cross-cultural management backgroundAbstract：Any nations culture owns its particularity ,continuity, and non-materiality. It is theDifferences of languages,traditions,characters and life styles made the diversities of the nations and their cultures. This embodies that cultural differences objectively exist in a cross一nation running enterprise during the Process of management and Practice. Such cross一nation running enterprises inevitably suffer the impacts and challenges from other culture(s).With the establishing of China-ASEAN Free Trade Zone, the economical and tradeRelationship between China(especially yunnan Province)and ASEAN nations isIncreasingly tied up, and, the moving Pace of Chinese enterprises stride out to strategy is getting faster. But the stride out to strategy by no means the same as stride into. The Chinese culture and culture of ASEAN members can be considered as affinitive. they are identified with the same oriental culture system and hold the most similarity in recognizing the world out side, dealing with the social problems, as well as the behavior criteria and the thinking method. however , the cultural differences between china and ASEAN members are still there because of the diversity of the history and environment, and the particularity of fertility and practice. this result in the obvious differences between the managers and staff in a multinational enterprise whether it is from china or ASEAN. With no effective cross-culture management ,a multinational enterprises internal consumption inevitably rise up its running cost increases and finally may result in the failure of its cross-nation running .According to the analysis of the Cultural differences between china and the ASEAN members, its two一edged character and its influence to the multinational enterprise, this essay introduces an effective measure, cross-cultural management .Based on the current management situation of Chinese enterprises who is trying to stride out to ASEAN nations, across一culture management model一gradually cultural integrating model一is explored. The exonerate tactic of implementing cross一culture management is also discussed in this assay.Keyword: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);cultural Difference;Cross一Culture Management; gradually Culture Integrating Model; tactic1. BackgroundAs most of you know the increasing globalization and internationalization has become of great importance recently. More and more companies start to look abroad to expand their businesses as the world becomes more and more interconnected. To manage business operations across international boundaries has become one of the largest challenges for international business today. According to Root (1994) the global economy has formed business environments that require companies to look past the traditional thinking of the home market, and start instead looking at business from an international global perspective. The method a company ventures from their home market to new geographical markets is of great importance for how well the company succeeds with their business. According to Osland etal. (2001), small and medium size firms that have taken the decision to internationalize and multinational companies that want to expand into foreign markets are both faced with the challenge of choosing the best structural arrangements.Bennett (1995) discusses many factors that encourage companies to begin operating internationally. The most obvious are: Hoped for economies of scale and scope. Experience Curve effects resulting from increased outputs. The possibility of the existence of beneficial markets in foreign countries that is not available at home.We believe that the development in communication, improvement in travel conditions, lower tariff barriers and others have conduct foreign markets to be more accessible and have provided more opportunities for Swedish companies to go international. According to Dunning (1993) go international refers to various locations that contribute to value added activities. Root (1994) said that manufacturing and service companies enter international markets for several reasons. Some go in a foreign country because markets at home are growing faster. Other companies may basically follow their home customers who are going international. Since a high number of businesses from around the world enter the global market, firms need to be more specialize in order to sustain their competitiveness. The situation today for Swedish companies is not easy. There is a high level of competition between Swedish and foreign companies. This is one of the reasons to why firms should specialize and establish business operations abroad if they want to survive and grow. According to Slater (1968), the company must keep in mind that developing countries are very different from industrial developed countries. This fact becomes very important when it comes to entering a developing countrys market because developing countries for example often do not have a well functioning infrastructure and the population is many times poor and often spend a large part of their income on food articles. The political and legal issues also become an important part when it comes to entering the market. We elected the subject of our essay because we feel that these issues are of great interest to investigate. After some investigations we discovered that South America is a continent that have evolved fast and is still attracting more and more foreign companies. These countries were chosen because several of the largest cooperations that our selected company has conducted took place in these nations. 2.Statement of problemHuman resource management practice in MNCs at society level is believed to be fundamentally shaped by a nations competitive position in the global economy and its home countrys economic development. MNCs from countries with comparative advantages in the global economy will transfer their successful home practices to their overseas subsidiaries, while those from countries with less comparative advantages may be forced to adopt overseas best practice in order to compete (Edwards and Ferner, 2000). Following Hofstedes cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1991), the Chinese were described as more hierarchy to represent a high level in power distance, more collectivist, low level of uncertainty avoidance characteristic, the society does not readily accept change, and is very risk adverse: China has 66 scores for masculinity ranking and long-term orientation (see Table I). This dimension indicates a societys time perspective and a defensive attitude.The Thai employees, however, are used to the Thai management cultural values which are described as high power distance with the score of 64; the score of 20 for individual society is collectivist as compared to individualist; high score of 64 for uncertainty avoidance, as the society does not readily accept change and is very risk adverse; lowest masculinity ranking (34) among the Asian countries; and high ranked in long-term orientation with the score of 56. According to Roongrensuke and Chansuthus (1998), Thai peoples low tolerance for conflict reflects a socio-cultural context that Hofstede identifies as collectivist and associates with high power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance.Many previous studies done by Zhang (2003), Hofstede (1997, 1980), Adler and Ghadar (1990), and Ferner (1997) on the culture transferred by MNCs from developed countries to developed countries, or from developed countries to operate their business in developing countries, but none of the studies focused on the MNCs management practice being transferred from a developing country operating in another developing country, such as the case of China and Thailand. Triandis (1988) stated that cultures which are collectivistic emphasize fitting in with other people, social harmony, interpersonal sensitivity, conforming and readiness to be influenced by other people. This study, therefore, intended to investigate the perceptions of Thai employees regarding Chinese managers management practice.3.Literature reviewGudykunst et al. (1996) views culture as a collective phenomenon which could be shared, understood, and expressed by groups of people; it implies that a particular culture can be evaluated through the study of the perceptions and opinions of a group of people that belongs to that particular culture. This constitutes the theoretical basis to the methodology of this research, which will assess leadership behavior expectations by asking employees who belong to particular organizations how their leaders behave.3.1Cross-cultural perspectivesGlobalization plays an important role in policies and management practice in both local and global companies around the world. Dorfman and Howell (1988) stated that culture has been traditionally conceived of at the societal level of analysis, and found to be measurable at the individual level. Hofstede (1980, 1991, 1997) and Trompenaars (1994) developed the cultural measurement and empirically examined five dimensions of national cultures including power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation. The authors found significant national differences in the way that people approach work and organizations in international organizations and concluded that effective international management can only occur through the understanding of culture differences. Problems often arise in international organizations though misunderstandings arising from cultural differences presented by individuals working in the organizations. However, rather than trying to reduce the differences, cultural difference can be used by international firms as a strength to gain competitive advantage by learning and adapting the differences of other cultures. Zhang (2003) found that Chinese MNCs operating in the UK applied the UK management practices. Tung (2000) stated that as more and more organizations move across national borders, employees need to broaden their views on competition and, more importantly, vis-vis other national behaviors. International business practitioners need to know more about the differences rather than concentrating on the similarities. Culture and subculture are probably the most important aspects in this change to global behaviors.Culture can have a powerful impact on management and organization behavior. The challenge for management scholars is to determine what practices will work where and how much cultural adaptation is necessary. Heller (1998) suggests that culture should be approached in the same way one would approach an aggressive patient without prejudice. Black (1991) found five dimensions as components of the cross-cultural adjustment process including pre-departure training, previous overseas experience, organization selection mechanism, individual skills, and non-work factor. The first three dimensions concern the issues that exist ahead of expatriate managers departure from their countries; the remaining two dimensions are related to the period after the managers arrive in their foreign stations.3.2The link between individual culture and corporate cultureCultural values of individuals may not correspond to the cultural values of the enterprise or its behavior. But this raises the question whether corporate culture is the same as the cultural values of the individuals who are associated with the organization. The answer to this question may be unclear, particularly if individuals of more than one cultural background are associated within the organization. Often, individual cultural values may not match the values exercised by the organization. Cultural confusion may occur through corporate culture or management culture when individuals are employed in foreign firms, or employees work in MNCs which are managed by foreign managers. Furthermore, there is another question as to whether the cultural background of individuals working in various levels of the organization has an influence on the culture of the firm and relationships between culture and behavior.Hofstede (1984, 2001), House et al. (2001, 2004), and Wright and Aditya (1997) studied cross-cultural leadership and suggested that management and leadership concepts, behaviors, and styles are culturally conditioned. Laurent (1986) found that culture has three times more influence on key managerial assumptions and values than any other demographic characteristic, such as gender, level of education, or occupation. Therefore, leadership behavior expectations are culturally conditioned. People could learn and acquire culture from individuals social environment and socialization process. Gudykunst et al. (1996) stated that culture is a collective phenomenon which could be shared, understood, and expressed by groups of people.Edstrom and Galbraith (1977) classified the reasons for international staff transfer into three broad areas: to fill a specific vacancy job in a subsidiary operation; for management development purposes such as job rotation as part of building an internationally experienced team of managers; and/or for organization development purposes such as control and coordination, knowledge transfer, and cooperate culture. Black and Mendenhall (1990) stated that the cross-cultural competencies are the combination of three different dimensions including self-maintenance (mental health, psychological well-being, stress reduction, and self-confidence); relationships; and perceptions of host nations culture and its social systems. Thus, perceptions have been given an important role in defining competencies. Demers (2002) found that often employees tend to make perceptions based on the little information they receive through the media or stories. This leads to general stereotyping causing formation of wrong notions about the host culture. The author suggests that in-depth background information like social values, political system, and cultural values should be used to form the perceptions and to see a clear picture of a host nation culture. Thus, expatriate managers should be able to decode various verbal and non-verbal ways of communication being used in the new culture.3.3Chinese culture and managementHofstede (1990) found that Chinas long-term orientation (the highest-ranking factor) indicates a societys time perspective and an attitude of persevering. China has less individualism compared to other Asian countries. This may be attributed to the high level of emphasis on a collective society. The low individualism is manifested in close and committed member groups and extended relationships, and loyalty in a collective culture is very important. China also has significantly higher power distance compared to many other Asian countries (including Thailand) indicating a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. Hofstede and Bond (1988) developed Confucian dynamism that purportedly assesses a cultures tendency toward certain Confucian traits such as hard work ethic, thrift, and concept of time. The authors state that the central goal of Confucianism is to achieve social harmony, which depends not only on the maintenance of correct relationships among individuals but also on the protection of an individuals “face” or ones “dignity,” self-respect and prestige. It is concluded that if a Chinese person loses his or her face, he or she has lost eyes, nose, or mouth. Social interactions should be conducted so that nobodys face is lost. Face can also be given, when due respect is paid to someone else.Chen (1995) pointed out that the Chinese have a common cultural and religious tradition, so-called Confucianism, which encourages the belief of hierarchy and order in society as well as harmonious interpersonal relationships. Yeung and Tung (1996) clarified two major forms of Chinese companies, identified as Chinese family business (CFB) and the Chinese State Enterprise (CSE). The CFB are owned by families and are regarded as private family properties. Even though some CFBs have grown into multinational corporations, the ownerships are still under the control of family members. In addition, top management mainly consists of family members. In contrast, CSE were established and owned by the state; thus top managers are not owners of the business. Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the CSEs were assigned by the state and were themselves government officials.Yeung and Tung (1996) stated that the management processes in CFB and CSE are similar. The authors presented that CFB owners tend to adopt an instructive style of leadership. Thus, they would be very strict in order to control important information, such as financial information, to maintain their authoritative position. The subordinates are dependent upon the owners for the information. As a result, most major decisions in the businesses are made by the owners themselves. Finally, those managers who are not among the core members of the family do not have access to the key decision-making processes. In the CSE, the allocation of power is very limited, with most of the decision-making power concentrated in the hands of the CEO or in small groups of top managers and party officials. It could be concluded that there is a large power distance between the owners and the subordinates in Chinese manag