sobota, 7 grudnia 2013

Adler's models of cross-cultural interactions

Discuss cross-cultural communication issues in business organizations1
This reading is an edited and translated compilation of M. Kostera “Zarządzanie międzykulturowe” in Kozminski, Piotrowski (editor) (1999) Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, ISBN 83-01-12705-8.
Today, in the globalization age, everything seems or shows tendency to be unified. Globalization is a subject of enormous academic discussions about its positive and negative aspects. However, this is a present-day phenomenon (in our lives) causing us to respond to it, not just theoretical dispute. The cross-cultural management emerged as response of the management discipline of science to this issue. Theory implemented into practice distinguishes three main models of cross-cultural interactions defined by Nancy Adler. Their brief characteristics, with their strengths and weaknesses, are explained below.
The national culture style of communication is an act of domination of one organization (parent) over the other (child). The parent organization imposes its own style of management or negotiation upon the other. The cultures of dependent organizations are ignored or even discriminated when the imposed norms and values are introduced. This kind of model is theeasiest to be practiced. Moreover, it requires no special skills or knowledge of the managers.However, it is conducive to evoking unprofitable social conditions such as opposition and conflicts as well as downfall to the productivity and employees engagement. It wastes  chances and profits possible in case of incorporation artefacts characteristic for another cultures.
The coexistence culture style bases upon searching for compromise between cultures – theparent culture of organization and the cultures of its hosts. It focuses on finding acceptablesolutions for all the shareholders. To achieve that comparison research on different cultures ismade. In the light of its results compromised styles of management are designed. The areas of similarity are strongly involvein these processes. Additionally, a lot of attention is paid to the development of conflict avoiding strategies and actions aiming at finding commongrounds and values, even if concentration on these means less profit in a short run. Achievingcompromise improves social acceptance of different practices, philosophy or values. Moreover, strong aspects of different cultures are utilized even if in a narrow range.
The cooperation culture model bases on the assumption that constant cross-cultural interaction is favourable for the sustained flow of new values, which is perceived as beneficialfor the development of employees and the whole organizationNew strategies and procedures created base on the individual cultural patterns of organization’s members, but  what’s more -they are not limited to them. New methods of management encouraging tolerance, acceptancefor other cultures, new ideas and creativity are developed. This model promotes the fullest exploitation of the both – incorporating and incorporated cultures and sees different, foreign cultures as the most valuable artefacts. However, deployment of this model requires great deal of workload, time and generates costs.

To conclude, it seems that managers should avoid the two extreme stances in case of cross-cultural organizations, i.e. the ethnocentrism pretending to the label of nationalism and thepolycentrism destroying the identity of the own organization. Managers should be able to establish the balance between extremities.