Cross-cultural management is the fundamental “glue” to which international
businesses are held together. Without this glue, many businesses would not be dealing
in foreign markets today. The following articles discuss this issue and are examined
below. The articles herein prescribed for this essay are “The Cultural Context of
learning in international joint ventures (Liu and Vince, 1999)” [Herein known as Liu
and Vince] and “Cultural Classifications of Societies and How they affect Cross-
Cultural Management (Rodrigues, 1998)” [Herein known as Rodrigues]. These two
articles were chosen on basis of merit in understanding the diverse Chinese culture
and its difficulties in understanding all aspects of this culture and also the
international arena whereby various cultures converge to work together in the day-to-
day environment. Also, I believe that delving into just one dimension of cross-cultural
management does not account for the behaviour of cultures, and that such views are
myopic in understanding the cultural differences that exist today. In “Liu and Vince,
1999”, the authors address the issue of management in joint ventures in China. The
problems of cultural differences are addressed with examples and reinforced with
arguments from varying references. In “Rodrigues, 1998”, Rodrigues provides an
insight into cross-cultural management with an international outlook through the use
of thirteen classifications into these societies, and also via country studies.
Rodrigues is strong in the area of identifying, with the aid of Hofstede and
other authors, the existence of dimensions in classifying and managing cultures. Here
the provision of a simple table allows the reader to understand all the viewpoints of
management. Rodrigues goes beyond the typical “five dimensions of Hofstede”.
Rodrigues looks also at the works of Kulckhohn & Stodtbeck and Newman et al. This
extension allows the reader to understand further on such matters as fatalism and its
impact upon the business psyche. Rodrigues’ identification of thirteen areas of culture
differences places each culture into either category (eg. Individualistic vs.
Collectivism). Although quite comprehensive, only two options in each dimension
ignores the “grey” areas of classification that some cultures, and subcultures, might
exhibit. For example, classifying the Japanese culture as collective may stereotype all
Japanese, including those who were educated outside such norms.
Rodrigues finally addresses the possibility that cultures may have “multiple
classifications”. Although he fails to delve into this topic at length, he acknowledges
that such classifications do exist.
The timeliness of Rodrigues’ references provides extensive research, but given
the use of his own previous work, this exposes some biasness that has affected parts
of his journal article.
The choice of East and West in identifying cultural clashes is a strong topic for
Liu and Vince that identifies as many cultural differences as Rodrigues’
classifications, but Liu and Vince’s concentration upon Hofstede’s work to identify
the Chinese cultural behaviour limits the capacity of usage. The polarized cultures
presented by Liu and Vince emphasises not just the problem that many East and West
operations have, but also the problem that developed and developing countries have in
terms of satisfying each other’s goals.
This journal fails to address the Chinese handling of Western management.
Such a one-sided viewpoint provides little to the Chinese counterpart who, in turn,
must also understand the difference of Western culture.
The use of two case studies to address the cultural problems as provided by
Liu and Vince cannot compare with Rodrigues’ classifications. Liu and Vince provide
excellent points in allowing the reader to make judgements in relation to dealing with
Chinese businesses. However, they fail to delve further into the Chinese business
psyche, with such notions as “guanxi” (relationship-based business) and the lack of
property rights in determining the true nature of Chinese culture. Without such
notions, Liu and Vince confirm and stereotype the Chinese culture to one defined by
Hofstede.
The use of Simon (1976) by Liu and Vince in understanding organisational
learning is one that is emphasised and provides the sentiment throughout the article.
However, given the timeliness of Simon and the ever-changing economic status of
China (and the benefits with such change), Liu and Vince have provided quite a
“dated” journal article for the expatriate manager to use.
Although Liu and Vince address the issue of learning in international joint
ventures, they fail to address both Eastern and Western points of view, and rely
heavily upon Hofstede, among other authors, to depict a “long-held” view on Chinese
culture. Rodrigues, on the other hand, classify the various cultures through thirteen
dimensions that does not allow for “grey” cultures and subcultures to exist. Cross-
cultural management is a topic that has limitations for further research, given the vast
array of information available. However, as both articles show, these limitations may
not be that limited, given some aspects of cultures that have not been explored.