Dual Award Programme

- Individual Assignment Cover Sheet

Fold corner of EACH copy separately

Please complete the form (in capital letters) and attach it securely to the front of your assignment
before submitting your assignment.

Student ID: …0341011..………………………………………

Title of Your Award: …Bachelor of Business (Hons) International Business &

Marketing …

Name of module tutor: …Gu Manli……

Name of module: …Cross Cultural Management …

Module code: B U S
O B M 6 0 3 0 4

Assignment title: …Article Review …

Due date & time: …15th June, 2021 (2pm)…………………………………………

I have read and understood the TU Dual Award Regulations on cheating, plagiarism and collusion. I
declare that this piece of work is my own and does not contain any unacknowledged work from any
other sources.
I authorise the University to test any work submitted by me, using text comparison software, for
instances of plagiarism. I understand this will involve the University or its contractor copying my work
and storing it on a database to be used in future to test work submitted by others.

Note: The attachment of this statement on any electronically submitted assignments will be deemed to
have the same authority as a signed statement.

Signed: Date: 15th June, 2021

Basheer Ansari
Criteria Weightin Excellent (81-100)
g
Appreciate 50% Comprehensive and
cultural diversity meaningful literature
review which clearly and
fully describes research
findings drawing from
various cultural contexts.
Review demonstrates
awareness and
appreciation of the
diversity of communities
and cultures from a
management perspective.
Highlight what can be
learned from the diversity
of cultures and the way
forward in academic
research.
Use supporting 50% Uses a variety of
evidence supporting evidence,
making appropriate
reference to information or
analysis that significantly
supports the points being
made
Cross Cultural Management
Good (61-80) Fair (41-60) Fail (0-40)
Meaningful literature Sufficient Limited review of
review that clearly demonstration of research findings from a
describes how attitudes awareness of cultural cross-cultural
and behavior are diversity in perspective.
different across management Express attitudes and
cultures and practices. beliefs as an individual,
communities in terms Exhibits little curiosity from a one-sided view.
of management about what can be Show no evidence as of
practices. learned from diversity what can be learned
Highlight what can be of communities and from diversity of
learned from the cultures. communities and
diversity of cultures. cultures.
Uses adequate Uses adequate, but Uses little or irrelevant
supporting evidence, sometimes irrelevant, supporting evidence,
making appropriate supporting evidence, with little reference to
reference to making adequate, but information or analysis
information or analysis sometimes that supports the points
that supports the points inappropriate, being made
being made reference to
information or analysis
that supports the
points being made
Article Review (Individual Assignment)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Globalization is transforming our methods of thinking and doing, as well as driving cultural
change. Globalization has opened up vast amounts of business opportunities, transforming
workplaces into highly multicultural environments as a result of the emergence of cultural
diversity, which has been fueled by major forces such as technological advancements,
reduced trade and investment barriers, hereby easing the expansion of companies globally.
Conflicts and disagreements are unavoidable in such an atmosphere, and when working and
engaging in a global organization or a transnational team, one can expect cultural clashes.
(Harrison, 2006; Harrison and Huntington, 2000). It has been fashionable to emphasise cross-
cultural disputes as well as the relevance of infusing cultural differences in order to
investigate ethical behaviour and perspectives of people from other countries. This sets the
stage for both cooperation and conflict. (Nederveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg and van
Dierendonck, 2013). As a result, it is critical for us to understand and have a basic
understanding of how ethical conduct varies from country to country and cultural differences
in order to handle conflicts according to conflict resolution styles in various cultures,
allowing managers to do business cross-culturally with ease.

This article review analyses and examines the issue of ‘Conflicts and cultural differences' in
the context of cross-cultural management, as derived from previous literature reviews and
journal articles by a variety of writers who have presented their arguments by tying it to
Hofstede's model. As a result, we will use multiple aspects of the model to explain cross-
cultural conflicts and differences, such as individualism-collectivism, high and low context
and power distance in order to develop a conflict resolution for them. The strengths and flaws
of the study are then discussed, as well as recommendations for further research.

1.2 Background
Before diving into the details of this study, it's crucial to understand what culture and ethics
are. According to (Hofstede, 2011), Culture is the "collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes members of one group or category of people from members of another."
Values, beliefs, standards, and customs are among the traits included. Ethics refers to the
standards of human behaviour, whether applied to an individual or a group. National culture
is described in the same way as culture, but on a country-by-country basis. As a result of their
cultural backgrounds and ethics, people tend to deal with things differently, including
disagreements. Conflict refers to the struggles and tensions that arise between individuals as a
result of real or perceived differences. The term "differences" clearly implies how people
from different cultural backgrounds react to each situation, leading to a higher likelihood of
conflict, implying that conflict is rooted in culture. The ways of managing conflicts also
differ.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Individualism and Collectivism
Many studies have used this feature of Hofstede's model to examine countries' ethical
conduct and conflict resolution styles. Individualism emphasises the priority of the person,
whereas collectivism emphasises the collective aspect of social responsibilities (Stalder,
1996). Individualists place a premium on their individual objectives, needs, and rights,
whereas collectivists place a premium on communal advantages and relationships.

Researchers discovered that ethical standards varied between collectivist and individualistic
cultures, and that what is considered ethical in one culture may be considered unethical in
another. Individualistic cultures have often been represented by the United States and
Australia, whilst collectivist cultures have often been represented by China, Japan, and Ghana
(Husted and Allen, 2008). Individuals lay a greater emphasis on self-concern, whereas
collectivists place a greater emphasis on the concerns of others, hence their decision-making
processes and ethical standards are likely to differ. People who live in an individualistic
culture are more logical when making decisions, whereas people who live in a collectivist
culture are more dependant and less likely to betray the interests of vital ingroup members.
(LeFebvre and Franke, 2013). It is also stated that Individualists prefer direct approaches like
the competing style whereas Collectivists prefer the avoiding and compromising styles of
conflict resolution.

This can also be supported by using researcher Okpara's (2014) example of how behaviour
and emotions differ greatly between these two cultures: the purpose of offering presents
during any official business meetings. He specifically mentioned countries like China and
Japan, where certain individuals follow this gift-giving tradition. This ritual is mostly
observed by people of collectivist culture as a gesture to establish a positive relationship or
for long-term mutual gain. This custom is known as "guanxi" in China. Individualistic
society, on the other hand, views this ritual as unethical because they see giving a gift to
someone as an act of offering is a form of a bribe.
Individualists, unlike Collectivists, tend to speak their views in the workplace rather than
valuing the opinion of a group of individuals, according to the findings. Individualists
prioritise their own goals, matters, and needs, whereas Collectivists prioritise group values,
objectives, and harmony, implying that they would rather avoid confrontations and use
avoidance strategies to resolve conflicts, which Individualists who prefer direct approaches
and confrontations would not find effective. While avoidance strategy would imply care and
concern for Collectivists, it would be seen as deceiving by Individualists.

In addition, India is thought to be more collectivist than the United States (Perlow and
Weeks, 2002). The authors suggested that in American companies, assistance is seen as an
invasive interference. On the other hand, assisting at the Indian location is seen as a valuable
opportunity for skill development. These various framings represent the combined effect of
national, occupational, and organisational levels of culture in the two situations.

2.2 High-Context and Low-Context Culture

Researchers have also looked at this aspect of Hofstede's model: "culture is communication,
and communication is culture" (Hall, 1959). “Low-context” cultures are defined by explicit
or verbal communication, whereas “high-context” cultures are defined by implicit or non-
verbal communication. Indirect communication is preferred in high-context cultures, where
much of the information of communications is either in the physical location or internalised
in the person, whereas direct communication is preferred in low-context cultures, where
communications are explicit.
Individuals in low-context cultures are more efficient at separating the conflict issue from the
person involved in a task conflict, and yet remain friends. The instrumental issue is
interwoven with the individual who started the issue in high-context cultures. Openly
disagreeing with someone in public results in "face loss," which is a severe insult.
The dimensions of individualism and collectivism, as well as high and low context cultures,
are related. Individualistic cultures encourage people to speak up and openly express
themselves, whereas collectivist societies teach people to keep their emotions in check and
express them subtly, hereby, influencing their conflict resolution strategies.

According to the research by Chua, E. G. and Gudykunst, W. B. (1987), where 37 countries

were represented in the sample research, it was concluded that members of low-context
cultures used the solution orientation type of conflict resolution more than members of high-
context cultures. The findings also suggested that non-confrontation is used more in high-
context cultures compared to low-context cultures. This research is also supported by the
theories of Ting-Toomey (1985), It also aligns with Bond, Wan Leung, and Giacolone's
(1985) findings, which found that Chinese (a low Individualistic, high-context culture)
respondents were more inclined to advise an executive to meet with an insulter and an insult
target separately in order to avoid confrontation between the two. North Americans, on the
other hand (a high individualistic, low-context society), were more likely to recommend a
joint meeting to discuss the situation between the insulter and the target.

Low-context communication is direct and can help avoid misunderstandings, but it can also
escalate conflict since it is contentious in high-context societies, which emphasise
interpersonal ties.

2.3 Power Distance

A large number of academics link countries' ethical behaviours to the power distance
dimension. According to Hofstede (2011), power distance is the degree to which those who
are powerless in a society accept power imbalance and inequality as natural. In this section of
the literature review, extensive research has been undertaken to show the association between
large power distance and high levels of corruption in particular nations. India, Poland, and
Mexico were among the countries investigated. According to the study, countries that practise
strict respect for authority, have centralised organisations, and visible power inequality have a
higher corruption index because they use their financial power to influence the underpowered
to get something done in their favour and have a higher corruption index.

Authors like (Naresh Khatri, 2009) published their findings in journals regarding the
influence of power distance among employees and the disparities between them based on
higher and lower employment levels.
Employees in a high power distance workplace are unwilling to participate in decision-
making and prefer to have their supervisors make decisions and give them commands, which
they passively do.

Apart from that, many literature reviews have shown that leaders with a high power distance
tend to get away with conducting unethical acts because their actions are more likely to be
covered up by their loyal subordinates who are under pressure to comply with their superior's
wishes in the face of an ethical dilemma like the one described in (Soeharto, Nugroho, 2018).
They are also forbidden from blowing the whistle since it is seen as disrespectful and a
symbol of defiance of authority. According to their findings, countries with a high power
distance score high on the corruption index, such as Kenya and Nigeria. This is due to a
power imbalance, which leads to high corruption as those with power and money utilise it to
dominate the helpless and get work done in their favour.

However, things are different for countries with a low power distance. There is more power
equality, and society is more driven to speak up when it is needed. Canada is one of the key
examples given, as it has fewer unethical difficulties than other countries. The level of
corruption is likewise fairly low. This statistic, according to authors such as (Alas, 2006), is
related to Canada's low power distance culture. Nonetheless, unethical activities like as
corruption would persist in countries with low power distances because certain groups of
individuals would have a large power distance.
3.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Literature Review

The study of these reviews has been highly informative, according to the literature studies
done by many authors.
The writers used measure tools such as Bartletts' test of sphericity by Chua,E.G. (1987) and
others to assess the correctness and actuality of the historical studies cited in their
publications, determining whether the hypotheses are correct and providing accurate
information.
Good arguing opinions and conclusions on all sides of a topic or a situation were offered.
Consider the following scenario: According to the findings of Bond, Wan Leung, and
Giacolone from 1995, Chinese (a low Individualistic, high-context culture) respondents were
more likely to advise an executive to meet with an insulter and an insult target separately to
avoid confrontation between the two. On the other hand, North Americans (a high
individualistic, low-context society) were more inclined to suggest a joint conference to
discuss the insulter's and target's circumstances. They were also able to identify the
connections between individualism - collectivism, high-low context culture, and conflict,
which is a good analysis.

Furthermore, the research articles were able to uncover and emphasise how sub-groups
throughout cultures would adopt conflict resolution approaches differently than the full
community and colony. The data revealed that the presumption that most collectivists are
more likely to communicate indirectly while individualists are more likely to communicate
directly does not apply to all subgroups in a society. To illustrate their point of view, it also
brought up a few key ethical issues including corruption and bribery. Corruption is an
interesting topic because different countries have various perspectives on the act. A country
with a high level of uncertainty avoidance may not be prone to corruption, as numerous
academics have pointed out in their studies.

On the other hand, these literature reviews have some limitations, For example, as stated in
paragraph 2.3, within a society that primarily follows the low power distance culture, there
may be groups of people who follow the high power distance culture. As a result, the entire
course of the study may be altered, and the authors' arguments may become more solid. By
focusing their arguments on a specific country, many authors merely considered the broader
picture. Many people have been blind to the issues that exist inside that society's section.
There is a slew of other cultural factors that influence how people resolve conflicts across
cultures. Other cultural factors such as masculinity vs feminity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-
short term orientation could be considered as cultural variations that affect preferred resolution
strategies in this review, using Hofstede's model. Although Hofstede's dimension is helpful, there
are several models for describing the relationship between culture and ethics. As a result, readers
are unable to gain a broader perspective on the subject and may be unaware of how the other
models relate to the theme of culture and ethics.

4.0 Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

For better future research on the topic Conflicts and Cultural Differences, the identified
research gap should be bridged, Authors should use cultural models other than Hofstede’s
model, which will allow them to provide new discussions that are both informative and
argumentative, such as the Lewis Cultural Model (Business Insider, 2013).
Authors can also look for and analyse studies that can shed light on less-discussed cultural
factors such as power distance, globalization's impact on conflict strategy choices, conflict
preferences across subgroups, and so on. Globalization has resulted in changes, evolutions,
and the emergence of different values in cultures all over the world. However, only a few
papers have been written on the subject, and most of the research papers have only supported
previous theories with more solid evidence and findings rather than proposing new ones.

To summarise, cultural factors are the most essential factor in the development of a complex
multinational business; at the moment, this means cultural interfaces every time a border is
crossed, which happens virtually every day. It implies that cultural differences exist and will
not vanish as a result of any " convergence ". A brief examination of the global political
environment, on the other hand, demonstrates that cultural dimensions are present
everywhere, not only as before, but even more so than before the fall of the so-called iron
wall. They will continue to be so indefinitely.
The findings could help people understand why and how their affective response to cultural
differences is linked to a preference for a certain strategy to conflict resolution, as well as
how to increase their ability to adapt to diverse cultures.

Word Count: 2442 (Including In-text citation)

5.0 References
Alas, R., 2006. Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business
Ethics, 69(3), pp.237-247.

Bond, M.H., Wan, K.C., Leung, K., S Giacalone, R.A. (1985). How are responses to verbal
insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 16, 111-127.

Business Insider, 2013. The Lewis Model Explains Every Culture In The World. [online]
Business Insider. Available at: <https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9>
[Accessed 14 June 2021].

Chua, E. G. and Gudykunst, W. B. (1987) ‘Conflict Resolution Styles in Low- and High-
Context Cultures’, Communication Research Reports, 4(1), pp. 32–37. Available at:
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.taylors.edu.my/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edo&AN=18581599&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 14 June 2021).

Hall, E. (1959).The silent language. NewYork,NY: Doubleday.

Harrison, L.E. (2006) The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and
Save It from Itself. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, S.P. (2000) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human
Progress. New York: Basic Books.

Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

Husted, B. and Allen, D., 2008. Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural Business Ethics: The
Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on the Ethical Decision-Making Process. Journal
of Business Ethics, 82(2), pp.293-305.

Khatri, N., 2009. Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organisations - Naresh

Khatri, 2009. [online] SAGE Journals. Available at:
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/097226290901300101> [Accessed 14 June
2021].

LeFebvre, R. and Franke, V., 2013. Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in
Conflict Decision-Making. Societies, 3(1), pp.128-146.

O. Okpara, J., 2014. The effects of national culture on managers' attitudes toward business
ethics. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(2), pp.174-189.

Perlow, L. and Weeks, J., 2002. Who's helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), pp.345-361.

Stalder, D., 1996. Review of Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications. Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews, 41(12), pp.1219-1219.
Soeharto, I. and Nugroho, N., 2018. Are We Culturally Corrupt? Revisiting the Relationship
between Cultural Dimensions And Corruption Perception Index.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W.B.Gudykunst, L.P.
Stewart, S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp.
71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Nederveen Pieterse, A.,van Knippenberg, D. and van Dierendonck, D., 2013. Cultural
Diversity and Team Performance: The Role of Team Member Goal Orientation. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(3), pp.782-804.