W4q follow up-managing individuals and their behavior for organizational effectiveness

Follow Up-Managing Individuals and Their Behavior for Organizational Effectiveness Response Hofstede (1991) presented an analysis of four cultural dimensions to understand the cultural diversity in sociometric perspective. According to him
Power distance index is expected and implemented distance maintained between a leader and people led where perspective on maintaining strictness of authority can lead to confusion and misunderstanding in a culturally diverse team.
Secondly, where in cultures with low individuality index, a measure of individualism versus collectivism, people tend to associate more towards group identity rather than individual identity.
Thirdly, cultures with high masculinity index, defined as male superiority, expect women to retain traditional roles.
Fourthly, Members from cultures with low uncertainty avoidance index tend to respond actively or passively to the risks while those with high uncertainly avoidance index tend to avoid risks.
Recently, Hofstede and de Mooij (2011) defined a fifth dimension, called long term orientation, which defines perceived link of people with past and future. However, critics argue that the Hofstede viewed cultures from the political borders perspective and was influenced by the IBM sponsorship for the research study. Further, the cultures have undergone an immense change under the impact of current globalization and advancements in the communication technology which renders the results of Hofstede’s study as obsolete.
In the same context, Trompenaars and Turner (1997) defined cultural diversity on seven dimensions. According to them
Universalism believes in dogmas while particularism believes in solutions according to the situation.
Individualism refers to independence while communitarianism refers to group loyalty, similar to that defined by Hofstede.
Specifics tend to keep professionalism and personal relationships separate while diffuse side consider personal relations a must for professional and business growth.
Neutral people hide their emotions and feelings and take decisions on the basis of logic and reasoning while emotional people base their actions on feeling and emotions.
Achievement refers to people who gain status due to their achievement and their results while ascription side think that they are what is their status and not what they do.
Sequential phase their activities in a timed manner whereas synchronous do multiple jobs simultaneously.
People with internal direction believe in their actions and tend to take risks while people with outer direction remain submissive under destiny and tend to avoid risks and conflicts.
Wibbeke and MacArthur (2013) studied the cross cultural leadership competencies called geoleadership that explain the leadership competencies of a person in culturally diverse environment. These dimensions include
Careful leaders links the processes with the individual interests of the people in team.
Leaders develop active relationships with people from different cultures.
Leader with a conscious mind would be aware of the strength and weakness of the own culture and would not try to implement own cultural values to the others.
A leader would understating the contrast in what motivates one particular group of people and what motivational techniques are applicable to others and thus would adjust his behavior.
Leader would analyze the situation in its context and would develop a specific approach.
The leader can adapt to changing environments and the changes that these introduce to the current practices and processes.
A capable leader has the skills to develop strong professional relationships based on trust and respect with people from other cultures across the horizontal and vertical hierarchy of the organization.
The cultural diversity, if not managed properly, may lead to confusion and conflicts among the members of the team and thus would compromise the project objectives.
References
De Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G. 2011. Cross Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Review of Research Findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23 (1), p. 181–192.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
Trompenaars, E. and Turner, H. 1997. Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wibbeke, E. and Macarthur, S. 2013. Global Business Leadership. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Publications.
Response 2
Each project is unique in terms of its context, environment, objectives and the individuals who are part of the project team. Schwartz (1992) highlights that most of believe in universalism of our values. Lomranz (1976) argue personal space as the right distance measured by the cultural values. Evans and Edward (1973) describes that few cultures close distance between the persons is common like in Mediterranean cultures while in other cultures people maintain a specific distance. People from Vincentian culture may find the people from Jamaican culture as aggressive simply due to their high tone of voice. Wong (2007) is of the opinion that America culture values originality and distinctiveness at workplace despite the importance of team work where Americans may view cultures as weak who do not possess such characteristics which is a misconception than truth. Further, American businesses may seek benefit from characteristics of support and agreement in other cultures. The freedom of speech and expression of personal views in a fearless manner can be valuable for people from cultures who do not encourage such behavior. Bond et al (1985) explains that friendly insults are acceptable in American culture. Similarly, American culture is time bound is they tend to maintain their schedules for meetings and other activities where perspective of time may be quite fluid in other cultures. In fact, a good manager and leader need to be conscious of own culture’s weaknesses, strengths and biases and should not try to implement own values that had proven best practices in own culture to other cultures.
References
Bond, M., Wan, K. and Leung, K. 1985. How are Responses to Verbal Insult Related to Culture Collectivism and Power Distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16 (1), pp. 111-121.
Evans, G. and Howards, R. 1973. Personal Space. Psychological Bulletin, 80 (4), pp. 34-44.
Lomranz, J. 1976. Cultural Variations in Personal Space. Journal of Social Psychology, 99 (1), p. 21.
Schwartz, S. 1992. Normative Influences on Altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. eds. 2013. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 10th ed. New York: Academic Press.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. 2008. Generational Differences in Personality and Motivation. Do They Exist and What Are the Implications For the Workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8).
Response 3
According to Wong (2007), personal space provides “ framework (internal social capital within which individual internal dialogue occurs) -that defines who you are and what you under varying conditions. People react differently to outside information by due to what they believe in (values)-based on cultural background, experience and genetic makeup”. Chua et al (2012) advocates using personal spaces as a controlling tool as states that “ people who come to projects with diverse skills and backgrounds-but tend to develop structural, cognitive and relationship ties to the point that they share common values and beliefs forcing them to commit to a set of peer norms”. Different cultures respond to similar situation in different manners. Chua et al (2012) is of the view that “ knowledge to do something does not belong to one individual/group- and through interaction, negotiation and learning from others it can be made better”. According to Fred and Felix (2012), “ USA a reward of corner office can be regarded as a major incentive whereas in collectivist cultures found in Asia highly value prestige/leadership”-both lead to personal fulfillment”. In individual cultures, people tend to achieve distinction and aim for personal goals whereas in community oriented cultures people tend to work in groups and prefer to associate with these groups for their identity. Mary (2008) described that cultural background defines people responses to respect for authority which has a major impact on team collaboration. Nonverbal communication is an essential part of the conveying message in all cultures across the globe. Linda and Joel (2013) advocates that absence of nonverbal communication results in loss of social presence, miscommunication and misinterpretation of the message. Fred and Felix (2012) argue that “ a culturally sensitive manager must recognize the existence of multiple path to reach a destination and groups vary in ways they communicate and understand messages within and across groups and across cultures”. Valuing time affects the overall effectiveness of the team and influences the success in meeting the project objectives. Cultures have varied perception of the time value like Americans are very particular about meeting deadlines and schedules whereas African cultures are not viewed as good time managers (Hahn, Moon and Zhang 2008). Fred and Felix (2012) expect that a managers must be equipped with tools and techniques that allow him to adapt to changing environment and the changes brought by the environment.
White (2011) highlight four types of generations in the United States workforce like traditionalists, baby boomers, generation X and generation Y or Millennials each having its own set of characteristics. Hauptman and Hirji (1999) suggest finding a right mix of these generation to form teams that are effective, integrated and well-coordinated to achieve project objectives.
References
Chua, C., Lim, W., Soh, C. and Sia, S. 2012. Enacting Clan Control In Complex IT Projects: A Social Capital Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), pp. 577-600.
Fred, N. and Felix, E. 2011. Emerging Markets. Managing Global IT Teams Considering Cultural Dynamics. Communication of the ACM2011, 54 (4), pp. 24-27.
Linda, O. and Joel, O. 2013. Virtual Team Effectiveness & Sequence of Conditions. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 17 (1), pp. 1-12.
Mary, C. 2008. Large Scale Project Team Building beyond the Basics. Communications of the ACM, 51 (10), pp. 113-116.
White, M. 2011. Rethinking Generation Gaps in the Workplace: Focus on Shared Values. Masters. Kenan Flagler Business School.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. 2008. Generational Differences in Personality and Motivation. Do They Exist and What Are the Implications For the Workplace?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8).