In this zone, we critically discuss cultural differences and examine how organisations can manage and utilise cultural nuances and idiosyncrasies for competitive advantage.
The advent and subsequent march of globalisation, which former U.S. President, Bill Clinton38 (p. 274), proclaimed as ‘the central reality of our time,’ has carved a dynamic, multicultural corporate landscape and drawn societies closer together than ever before in a diverse and culturally-rich global village.39 The conflation of rapid and intense political, economic, socio-cultural and technological forces have created and transformed marketplaces, economies, industries and jobs across the globe, to the extent where citizens of the metaphorical village are working together and conducting business, communicating and interacting with each other in ways that were, in the past, deemed improbable.
40 With this in mind, organisations are faced with the challenge of managing a multicultural workforce in national and international contexts, along with cultural nuances, norms and values that are idiosyncratic to each country and society. Managers and individuals must therefore understand the essence of cultural differences and how they influence working relationships and overall business success.41 Over the past three decades, a plethora of anthropological studies have been proffered by theorists such as Hofstede42, 43 and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner,44 each of which has attempted to raise awareness and develop our understanding of different cultural dimensions that characterise global nations. From this perspective, Søderberg and Holden45 view culture as an amalgam of assumptions, norms and values that are transmitted to the next generation by socialisation.
Essentially, it is characterised as something members of a community have or belong to. These norms, values assumptions and indeed traditions differ from country to country and, arguably, a lack of understanding of these differences and how they originated give rise to stereotypes,46 misperceptions, misjudgements and mistakes in managing relationships with the organisation’s members, stakeholders and customers.47 Lewis48 (p. 17) proffers that our positive and negative perceptions and general attitudes to cultural differences have emerged as a result of ‘brainwashing’.
He notes ‘we think our minds are free, but like captured American pilots in Vietnam and North Korea, we have been thoroughly brainwashed.’ He attributes these reactions to ‘collective programming,’ which, he claims began when we were born and have been reinforced and perpetuated throughout our lifetime and interplayed both in and outside the workplace. Lewis argues that our programming ‘convinces us that we are normal, others eccentric.’ Fitzpatrick49 concurs and suggests that the meanings, interpretations, stereotypes and misperceptions that we ascribe to cultural norms and differences are influenced, regulated and negotiated as part of our social constructions of reality.
These have developed over time and are, in part, shaped by our interactions with, and experiences of, working with diverse cultures. Lewis48 and Fitzpatrick indicate that, rightly or wrongly, there is an element of predetermination and predictability in the way we behave.46 While the models of Hofstede and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner have provided us with a snapshot of cultural nuances, Lewis50 argues that their preoccupation with dimensions such as time, religion and nationality has overlooked the missing link: behaviour.
”Based on his research, which began in the 1990s, he concluded that human beings can be clearly dichotomised into three categories. First, Linear-active incorporating, for example, Britain, North America and Northern Europe. Second, Reactive, which includes all the main countries in Asia, apart from the Indian sub-continent (hybrid) and third, Multi-Active, such as Southern Europe, South America and the Middle East. Lewis50 proffers that although these global cultures are geographically diverse and differ in terms of their values, beliefs and religions, behaviourally, they can be classified as a group, because they follow the same behavioural pattern and display similar traits and commonalities, such as emotion, expressive body language, variable work ethic, primacy of family bonds and relationship orientation.
Lewis51 suggests that placing a focus on national behaviours and the cultural roots that define them, both in terms of business and society, can assist organisations to predict and calculate, with a surprising amount of accuracy, how individuals will cooperate with, and respond to, each other in the workplace. Is it that simple, though? One could argue that it isn’t.
Lewis51 and Fitzpatrick, and indeed Hofstede in his original definition of culture, suggest that our views, perceptions, misperceptions, misjudgements et al are a by-product of our social constructions and collective programming that began when we were born and have continued through child and adulthood. Like the Jungian shadow, these are deep-rooted, hidden and surfaced when we are confronted with situations that require us to interact, work and do business with people from other cultures. Hoecklin52 (p. ix) caveated that if shadow behaviours, as they pertain to our views of other cultures, are not managed, cultural differences may lead to ‘management frustration, costly misunderstandings and even business failures.’ In this respect, cross-cultural management can be utilised by organisations as a strategy to mitigate against the rather negative portrait painted by Hoecklin and a tactic to deal with conflict, friction and miscommunication that arise as a result of cultural clashes.45 Managing cultural differences can also ensure that a diverse workforce can be utilised as a strategic, organisational asset rather than a liability.53 Additionally, engaging in cross-cultural awareness training can help to reduce the negativity associated with culture shock,54 equip managers with the requisite knowledge and skills to effectively bridge the gap between different cultures and help the organisation’s members to minimise the risk of judging and indeed misjudging others based on their own deep-rooted subjective biases and stereotypes.41 To conclude, due to the effects of collective programming, organisations can, to some extent though not fully, manage cultural nuances and idiosyncrasies. Our own culture, and how we perceive other cultures, is deeply ingrained within us and is part of our cultural fabric and what defines us as human beings. Importantly, Schneider and Barsoux55 and Lewis48 point out that the task of understanding and managing cultural differences is not to contain or neutralise diversity but to build on and exploit it. Hoecklin concurs but caveats that before an organisation contemplates utilising cultural differences as competitive advantage, its assumptions, and those of its members, must change.
Rather than being an obstacle to conducting business across diverse cultures, a multicultural workforce can yield a variety of tangible benefits to organisations, including diversity of knowledge, skills, expertise, world views, innovation and creativity. However, for these benefits to be leveraged and differentness celebrated, Holden47 concludes ‘culture and its consequences must be managed and this, by general consent, is no easy task.’

1.Globalisation has played a major role in creating a culturally-rich global village. What other factors have contributed to the rise in the multicultural workplace?

2.Lewis, Fitzpatrick and Hofstede proffer that our assumptions, misperceptions and misjudgements about cultural differences are socially constructed and, to a lesser or greater extent, pre-programmed.

What implications does this have for organisational behaviour in the workplace?

3.How can organisations ‘effectively’ manage cultural differences for competitive advantage?