The essence of cross-cultural management. Concepts of culture in cross-cultural management

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Analysis and resolution of cross-cultural conflicts

Quite a lot has been written and translated regarding the use of cross-cultural management features in establishing communications and negotiating. However, today in the literature in Russian it is difficult to find systematic recommendations on how to resolve cross-cultural conflicts that often arise in enterprises.

How can applied or instrumental knowledge in the field of cross-cultural management be used to resolve real conflicts that arise on intercultural grounds? We will try to create an algorithm for a very specific group of cross-cultural conflicts. The one that occurs perhaps most often. We will talk about conflicts between top and middle management at Russian enterprises purchased or created by foreign companies. Our experience shows that, as a rule, such conflicts have significant similarities. And they follow almost the same scenario.

The top officials at such enterprises are usually expats (although recently there has been a tendency to attract Russians to these positions), and middle management has Russian roots. It is between these two groups of managers that intercultural misunderstanding most often arises, that is, communication and behavioral barriers are built.

We would also like to note: what we will talk about often occurs within the framework of cross-cultural conflicts at purely Russian enterprises. Only here the ground for conflicts is created by the differing behavioral stereotypes of Russian managers. For example, managers who belong to different age groups. Or managers who came from different organizational cultures(for example, power and entrepreneurial).

The situation is also well known when Moscow and St. Petersburg investors, and recently more and more often investors from thirteen million-plus cities, come to small cities in various regions of the country, buy up enterprises that are on the verge of bankruptcy and begin to reorganize them. The top positions are occupied by dynamic, market-oriented managers and owners.

According to the paradigm of behavior, they gravitate towards the Anglo-Saxon culture. As for middle management, it is a product of the management model that Gerdt Hofstede called “Family or Tribe” and which we discussed in the previous chapter. It, as we remember, is characterized, among other things, by high power distance, relatively high levels of collectivism, context and status. Already such a status parameter as age is fraught with the seed of conflict. For new owners often turn out to be a generation younger than their middle-echelon subordinates.

1. The usual paradigm of cross-cultural conflict

So, what is the paradigm for analyzing cross-cultural conflict and the main steps to resolve it? Any cross-cultural conflict is based on two main problems:

The first of them is a violation of effective cross-cultural communications;

The second is a clash of behavioral stereotypes.

Moreover, the problem of disruption of cross-cultural communications often seems less significant. Therefore, managers often “skip over” it and strive to immediately move on to the content of the conflict.

However, in our experience, it is the violation of cross-cultural communications that causes 60 - 70 percent of intercultural conflicts in enterprises. People talk and don't hear each other. The same terms mean completely different things. Subordinates do not object because they do not consider it necessary to do so, and managers believe that they agree with them. Finally, translators do not translate what is said, but what they understand. As a result, a denouement comes when the parties come into conflict.

The second problem, which accounts for the remaining 30 - 40 percent of the causes of cross-cultural conflicts, is the clash of different behavioral stereotypes, which, in turn, are based on different value systems.

2. Main stages and principles of conflict resolution

When resolving cross-cultural conflicts, several standard actions are usually taken. Or, what is the same thing, several standard steps are taken.

The first step is obvious: it is necessary to carefully analyze and try to understand the specific causes of this particular conflict. As they said in Anna Karenina, "Everything happy families are similar to each other, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Therefore, we start with monitoring, that is, with the study of those problems that give rise to misunderstandings in the team or in work groups; cause a violation of mutual understanding between the top and middle management of the enterprise. All problems we conditionally divided into two groups: communication and behavioral.

Second. After we have managed to analyze with varying degrees of depth and list the communication and behavioral problems in order of importance, we begin to develop tactics for leading the enterprise out of a cross-cultural conflict. That is, we are trying to find and outline specific steps to quickly “resolve” the situation, or “put out the fire.”

Third. Then comes the most important stage- final. We are moving on to developing strategic plan measures that will help avoid similar conflicts in the future. After all, what we managed to a short time extinguishing the conflict, letting off emotional steam and building bridges of mutual understanding between people does not mean that the problem is resolved. What lies ahead is the creation of a corporate culture, a common system of values for the entire team. And this is always a rather lengthy process.

Before you begin to resolve your first cross-cultural conflict, I suggest you pay attention to one important thing: universal rule: "In all cross-cultural conflicts, it is necessary to maintain absolute presence of mind and not give in own emotions. No matter how one side or another provokes you to do this. Any cross-cultural conflict can only be resolved if there is mutual understanding. And it is so easy to destroy and so difficult to conquer.”

Note. The degree of emotional stress of the conflicting parties can usually be divided into three stages:

Stage one: tension interferes with effective communication, but the situation can be quickly resolved.

Second stage: rapprochement has already become difficult, conflict resolution requires more time.

Third stage: a situation of deep conflict that has moved from the essential to the interpersonal plane. Usually requires surgical measures (partial sanitation of the team).

3. Strategic vision

As we have already noted, we need not only to develop tactics for overcoming intercultural conflict, but also to outline strategic measures to prevent it in the future. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that it is impossible to provide for absolutely everything on the shore.

What goals should be set first and what measures should be taken?

Firstly, when planning any events within the team - negotiations, meetings, trainings, meetings, repositioning of managers - you should always proceed from the fact that in the end you are creating a team whose corporate culture allows it to resolve conflicts without outside interference.

Secondly, when planning changes and reorganization, you must proceed from the fact that your key task is to restore the authority of the current management as much as possible. Make the entire team, from middle management to blue collar workers, believe that they are doing one common thing. And if you win, the results will work for everyone.

Thirdly, the key and most difficult moment- overcoming the “us and them” conflict. While the team, pointing to the boss’s office, says “they,” the seeds of cross-cultural conflicts smolder throughout the organization. Assigning the boss to the team and proving the correctness of his course are mandatory steps towards overcoming intercultural conflict.

In conditions of high power distance characteristic of Russian culture, many measures are implemented quickly and effectively only by force. It must be said that middle management and blue collar workers in the context of resolving cross-cultural conflicts usually treat such methods relatively loyally. Moreover, often a boss who is not ready to show strength and determination in difficult conditions, they call him a rag and believe that he is not capable of leading the company and leading it to victory.

However, in use forceful methods there is a serious danger lurking. All the practice of developing modern successful companies shows that the excessively high power distance, so characteristic of our country, ultimately suppresses initiative from below. We must not forget that this "initiative from below", along with a sense of national culture, a sense of regional culture, a sense of industry culture, is a factor that gives companies serious competitive advantages. People who know what can be done outside of written rules based on local traditions and built interpersonal relationships - that is, those people who, in fact, are carriers of local culture, should retain key positions in the enterprise.

When building measures to resolve a cross-cultural conflict, you must find a middle ground: on the one hand, establish the authority of the leader, and on the other hand, not go too far or retreat in time so as not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

4. Communication monitoring

There is a golden rule in preference, which sounds like this: “Let's select our own.” First, those bribes that are the simplest are selected. I propose to follow the same path. First of all, we will conduct a short monitoring of basic communications and communication violations at the enterprise.

First. Check whether the conflict is caused by communication breakdowns due to different perceptions of the context by top and middle management. Are there among the reasons here numerous “yes” that meant “no”; differences in the time required to make decisions, etc.

Second. See if poor knowledge of a foreign language, young general managers’ lack of knowledge of the professional language, low qualifications of translators, etc. are a constant obstacle to communications. You'll be surprised how often these simple reasons seriously hinder mutual understanding!

Third. Check whether the reason for the disruption of communications and tension in the team is the “artificial hetotoization” of top management (foreigners, Muscovites, etc.): their communication is only within their narrow circle; non-participation in events where informal connections can be established with the team and middle management (sports competitions, parties, field trips, etc.).

Fourth. Pay attention to non-verbal language (especially if it does not match between the conflicting parties). Incorrect “reading” of gestures often leads to additional stress.

5. Monitoring Behavioral Differences: Understanding Time and Perspective

When we begin to consider the causes of cross-cultural conflict, it is useful to try to determine reference points, which most often determine the inconsistency of behavioral stereotypes.

Let's start with the perception of the strategic goal. Representatives of countries oriented towards Anglo-Saxon culture, as well as the young generation of managers in the largest Russian cities, profess the principles of rational culture. At the heart of this culture is the Protestant ethic of Max Weber. These people believe that it is necessary to work actively and that the result of their work should be their personal achievements, as well as the achievements of their enterprise. These are rational people with rational goals and behavior. For them, personal material goals (earn more) and intangible goals (make a career and self-realization) are quite rational. The goals of the enterprise are no less rational for them: the achievements of the enterprise change through profit, profit changes through sales. From this point of view, the strategy must be calculated and translated into money.

As soon as we move into Eastern culture - be it the culture of East Asian peoples or the culture of traditional Russian management - we are faced with a slightly different perception of perspective. The focus on making money and achieving a certain material goal here very often turns out to be secondary. People are inspired by long-term and vaguely defined goals. We are ready to work in the name of the “city of the future.” For them - as in the “Family” culture model - it is often more important what to do (“forge the defense of the Motherland”) than how to do it (with minimal costs and maximum profit). Fundamental differences in target and motivational behavioral stereotypes are the most common underlying cause of cross-cultural conflicts.

Let’s imagine that a team of Western managers (or young private investors from the Center) came to a traditional Russian enterprise and began preparing for a meeting at which they were going to announce the company’s development strategy. What should she tell people? Along with financial indicators, indicators of profit growth and an increase in market share, it will probably be necessary to explain what their enterprise will provide for the development of Russia, how important this business is for solving the social problems of a given region, area, and how the products produced will serve people. What will the company's employees benefit from this and what will be the social policy.

The other most common behavioral stereotypes that conflict and cause tension when reforming Russian enterprises are stereotypes associated with extremely high power distance (this is especially difficult for Scandinavian management, accustomed to a “flat” management system) and differences in the speed and order of decision-making. Between Eastern and Western cultures, as well as between the culture of metropolitan private enterprises and traditional companies of small cities, there is a huge difference in the perception of the speed of the passage of time. And if for some cultures statements such as: “the decision must be matured”, “this must be ventilated at the top”, “discussed with colleagues” are completely justified, then in others (in particular, in the Anglo-Saxon culture) the position that “it is better” often applies weak solution, but fast decision than a long absence of a solution at all." cultural management conflict communication

List of used literature

1. Cross-cultural management: textbook for undergraduate and graduate courses / S. P. Myasoedov, L. G. Borisova. -- 3rd ed. - M.: Yurayt Publishing House, 2015

2. Nigel J. Holden. Cross-cultural management. Concept of cognitive management. M.: Unity-Dana, 2005. 364 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

Cross-cultural communications or intercultural communication. Part 1. Fyodor Vasiliev. Psychology

Fundamentals of management. Managing organizational culture.

Negotiator self-discipline

Subtitles

Subject and tasks of cross-cultural management

The subject of cross-cultural management is the management of business relationships that arise at the intersection of different cultures, including:

creating tolerant interaction and communications, conditions for fruitful work and successful business at the intersection of different business cultures;
regulation of intercultural conflicts in the business environment;
development of cross-cultural competence of business owners, managers and staff. The combination of these three components makes it possible to use cultural diversity not as a hindrance, but as a resource for the organization.

The tasks of intercultural management are the creation, development and management of technologies of cultural diversity - cross-cultural technologies, as well as the formation and development of “intercultural” managers in order to increase the efficiency of the organization in a global economy.

Nigel J. Holden makes the case for a new understanding of cross-cultural management as a form of knowledge management. According to Holden, cross-cultural management is the management of many cultures, both within the organization and in its external relations. The author considers culture as an object of cognitive management and as the most important organizational resource. In the traditional domestic and foreign understanding, culture is the source of fundamental differences and new knowledge about them allows one to achieve success in international business.

In fact, no one before N. Holden considered cross-cultural management in three aspects: as self-learning of the organization, sharing of knowledge and building interactive networks at the local and global levels. Meanwhile, it is the combination of these three components that makes it possible to use cultural diversity not as a hindrance, but as a resource for the organization.

Stages of developing cross-cultural management

The first organizations to initiate and first explore cross-cultural differences in management practices were American transnational companies that collided in the 50-60s of the twentieth century. with the need for exposure to other national cultures. Conceptual frameworks for identifying, identifying, and assessing commonalities and differences in management problems across countries and regions of the world began to emerge in academic research in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the 80s XX century a special discipline called “cross-cultural management” is being formed.

First stage

Associated with research on issues at the global, transnational levels, in connection with the expanded penetration of large national companies into the markets of other countries. At this stage, the concept of monoculturalism of the countries under study, the concept of the “nation state” were used, and we also talked about the “German model of business mentality” and the “Chinese model”, etc. As part of this stage, the founders of cross-cultural management analyzed numerous factors, which influence the formation of certain features of the mentality inherent in any people or nation - historical, geographical, folklore, religious. The socio-economic justification for the intrinsic value of each national model had great importance against the background of propaganda of abstract “universal human values” and averaged “human rights”. At this stage, the creators of cross-cultural management came to the conclusion: all nations are different, each of them has its own system of values that have been developed over generations and their change cannot take place without damage to the nation.

Second phase

At this stage, the development of theories and typologies of corporate cultures related to the problems of the international division of labor took place. The creators noted that different national cultures gravitate toward different types of organization of the economic process and give rise to different types of organizational behavior and economic activity. There have also been many studies of types of corporate cultures based on the application of national business mentalities to specific economic activities.

A big achievement at this stage was the understanding that corporate organization culture, firstly, it is based on the national economic mentality, and secondly, it can only be changed taking into account its internal development paradigm.

Third stage

Recently, research on the management of “cultural diversity” has come to the fore, aimed at developing mechanisms that would allow, while preserving the national and cultural identity of certain groups of the population, to ensure sustainable management control by developing a common and acceptable for representatives of different cultures, a cross-cultural model. cultural management mechanisms, both in business and in geopolitics, cultural management technologies.

Geert Hofstede's model

Geert Hofstede described culture as the process of collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group of people from another. According to Hofstede, people's perceptions and understanding of different countries differ in four ways:

Notes

Literature

Simonova L. M. Transcultural approach in international business (foreign asset management), 2003.
Persikova T. N. Intercultural communication and corporate culture, 2008.

Today in Russia, the intersection, interaction and clash of different cultures occurs more often than many leaders realize. The cross-cultural approach applies to many areas of human activity, especially business. The regional, sociocultural and national aspect in business and territorial features of management are gradually gaining importance in the Russian business society. The reason for this is the cross-cultural conditions for the functioning of business: new mixed partnership mechanisms are emerging in the domestic and world economy, based on the interpenetration and reunification of values, attitudes and norms of behavior of various civilizations, cultures, subcultures, countercultures. Every year various representative offices appear in Russia international companies, and Russian business is increasing its activity abroad. It is important to note that operating in cross-cultural settings creates both specific opportunities and risks for actors. I highlight areas in which cross-culture manifests itself, is formed, and is created.

Thus, the most characteristic areas of socio-economic activity of business organizations, where there is intersection, interaction, and clash of different cultures, are: - management of international and interregional business; - interaction of professional subcultures in business; - management of company values; - communication with the external environment of the company; - marketing; - human resource management; - relocation, employment and career in another region, country; - interaction between city and village in Russia. Increasing competence in the field of cross-cultural management by modern managers is necessary, because Doing business in Russia has many regional, local-territorial features. A Russian manager operates in a variety of domestic (within the country) and external cultures. Knowledge of your own cultural specifics, as well as the specifics of the business culture of other ethnic groups, nationalities, peoples, civilizations, becomes extremely important, because the more diverse the cultural field of doing business, the higher the reputational risks, the more acute the cross-cultural differences, the higher the communication barriers, more critical are the requirements for cross-cultural competence of a manager. Cross-cultural management is a relatively new field of knowledge for Russia; it is management carried out at the junction of cultures: macro level - management at the junction of national and regional cultures, micro level - at the junction of territorial, age, professional, organizational, and other cultures. Cross-cultural management is aimed at solving the following tasks of Clients: 1) assistance in management business relations, arising in a multicultural environment, including, incl. creating tolerant interaction, successful communications, conditions for fruitful work and profitable business at the intersection of different business cultures; 2) regulation of intercultural conflicts in the business environment; 3) development of cross-cultural competence of business owners, managers, and personnel. The multiethnic nature of Russian society makes it advisable to take into account cross-cultural aspects in business. Therefore, the leaders of both international and regional business It is advisable to develop in matters of cross-cultural management and communications, and for organizations to train staff in this direction. Studying cross-cultural topics helps managers get to know themselves better, identify their cultural profile, develop cross-cultural competence, and therefore avoid risks, undesirable consequences for business, career and personal life, and become more successful.

The internationalization of business and the economy, with all the ensuing benefits, has nevertheless become a global problem. Businesses are becoming increasingly international, and business schools are increasingly emphasizing the need for managers to internationalize their views. In relation to existing organizations, this means the need to take greater account of differences in national cultures.

Peter F. Drucker explains this phenomenon in such a way that as the economy globalizes, there is “an increase in national and local isolation, which is determined economically, but above all, politically.” In other words, the growth of national and cultural isolation is a defensive response to new global economic realities.

Cross-cultural management is the creation and application of technologies for managing cultural diversity in the context of economic globalization.

Cross-cultural management is a new area of knowledge for Russia; it is management carried out at the intersection of cultures, divided into:

1) macro level - management at the intersection of national and regional cultures;

2) micro level - management at the intersection of local-territorial, age, professional, organizational and other cultures.

Theoretical understanding of the patterns of interaction between business cultures begins after the Second World War, although in reality, in practice, the problems of cross-cultural management, that is, managing international processes of business communication, are as old as the economy itself.

Business communication has always been based, at all times and among all peoples, on the national vision of the world, on national cultures and on the national, including economic, mentality. So why exactly in the 50-60s. last century, this problem began to concentrate into a separate discipline.

Most researchers believe that this is due to the development of international management and the emergence of globalization, caused, in turn, by a sharp increase in international economic relations in the post-war recovery period.

The immediate impetus for the emergence of a cross-cultural approach in international management was the implementation of the American Marshall Plan, the penetration of the American economy into foreign markets and the elevation of these plans to the rank of public policy USA. The active economic expansion of the United States quickly revealed the first difficulties and failures associated with non-economic, national and cultural characteristics of the markets of various countries.

This confronted American experts with the need to develop technologies and strategies for effectively promoting the economic interests of their country in a variety of national economic environments.

In the 60-70s. a whole group of US scientists, responding to the new challenges of the time, began to develop practical, psychological and strategic recommendations that would lead to minimizing losses when creating transnational companies and promoting American economic interests.

Its first stage was associated with the study of problems in a global, transnational lesson, in connection with the expanded penetration of large national companies into the markets of other countries. At this stage, “by default” the concept of monoculturalism of the countries under study, the concept of the “nation state” was used, and the discussion was about the “German model of business mentality”, “Chinese model”, etc.

Research of this period has accumulated invaluable material characterizing the characteristics of the national mentality, including business. The founders of cross-cultural management analyzed numerous factors influencing the formation of certain features of the mentality inherent in any people or nation - historical, geographical, folklore, religious.

The socio-economic justification for the intrinsic value of each national model was of great importance against the background of the propaganda of abstract “universal values” and averaged “human rights”.

The creators of cross-cultural management formulated an important conclusion: all nations are different, each has its own system of values, which have been developed by many generations and cannot be changed without damaging the well-being and well-being of the nation. However, in most cases, the meaning of the studies was limited to stating these differences.

The second stage of work on cross-cultural management was the development of theories and typologies of corporate cultures related to the problems of the international division of labor.

It was noted that different national cultures gravitate towards different types of organization of the economic process, give rise to different types of organizational behavior and different forms of economic activity. At this stage, studies of types of corporate cultures appear, based on the application of national business mentality to specific economic activities.

A great achievement of cross-cultural management was the understanding that the corporate culture of an organization,

Firstly, is based on the national economic mentality,

Secondly, can be changed only taking into account its internal development paradigm.

Interactions of corporate cultures, opportunity successful application of one or another organizational model on a specific national-economic “substrate” constitute the value of research on cross-cultural management in the 80-90s.

At the present, third stage, in the context of increasing migration processes and criticism of the idea of the “nation state,” the need has arisen to understand the patterns of interaction of national business models not only in foreign economic activity, but also within countries that are becoming more and more multiethnic and multicultural. The cultural diversification of the personnel of large, and later medium-sized enterprises in developed countries has raised questions about the correction of traditional personnel management systems taking into account cross-cultural differences.

Finally, the spread of communitarianism and segregation on a cultural-national basis, observed today in all developed countries of Europe and America, the strengthening of xenophobia and racial intolerance both on the part of the “indigenous population” and on the part of migrants, not only required the development of specific management mechanisms for political and economic regulation, but also made this range of issues paramount.

The attention paid to this issue in the international community is evidenced by the UN's declaration of 2008 as the “Year of Cultural Diversity.”

In recent years, research on the management of “cultural diversity” has come to the forefront, aimed at developing mechanisms that would make it possible, while preserving the national and cultural identity of certain groups of the population, to ensure sustainable and strict management control by developing some common, acceptable for representatives of different cultures, “protocol” - cross-cultural management technologies.

An additional impetus for these studies is given by the next round of geopolitical development - the processes of intercultural interaction in regional integration processes (Europe, the Middle East, Latin America) show the similarity of the use of cross-cultural management mechanisms both in business and in geopolitics.

Cross-cultural management emerged as a practical discipline. It was based on practical recommendations, formulated for a wide range of executives and managers at different levels in order to reduce economic risks and losses associated with intercultural conflicts. And losses of this kind are significant and significant. Statistics on them are little known and often remain in company archives, but even a few examples can indicate their scale.

The first set of problems that the founders of cross-cultural management faced were related to the difficulties that managers encountered during a long stay in a foreign cultural environment, in particular, during a business trip to another country or region.

For example.According to research from German universities published in the 90s. XX century, from 10 to 20% of employees sent to work abroad interrupt their business trip early, and about 30% do not perform their duties with the expected efficiency. The work potential of employees abroad was reduced by more than half (40% efficiency compared to 85% when working at an enterprise in Germany), and this loss of quality was explained by the secondees themselves by the environment of conflict and alienation in which they had to work.

Enterprises continued to suffer losses even after the return of their employees: almost 50% of business travelers quit upon their return, citing the impossibility of applying the experience they had acquired over the years of working abroad in their old place. The economic damage of companies that used intercultural technologies in their international business strategies was significantly lower

Economic losses also occur when attempting to create branches or representative offices in regions or countries whose culture differs significantly from the culture of the country of origin.

As example You can cite the activities of the Auchan company, one of the leaders in the food hypermarket market in France. During recent years she is very actively promoting on Russian market and quite easily achieves success among Russian consumers. However, few people know that the decision to enter the Russian market was made after a series of unsuccessful attempts by Auchan to enter the markets of the USA, Mexico and Thailand. Taking into account the differences in economic conditions between these countries, it is obvious that the company’s inability to adapt to their socio-cultural characteristics played a significant role in Auchan’s failures.

Today, cross-cultural management solves its problems at the macro- and microeconomic levels.

External level application of patterns and technologies of cross-cultural management is:

· participation in the international division of labor (regional, national specifics);

· interaction of business cultures during international contacts (negotiations, foreign economic activity of the enterprise);

· creation of networks of branches and representative offices in a foreign cultural environment (international, interregional, network companies);

· mergers and acquisitions.

At the internal level, the application of patterns and mechanisms of cross-cultural management is necessary when:

· introduction of new technologies and management systems at the enterprise;

· reforming and restructuring of the enterprise;

· management of multicultural and multiethnic teams;

· as well as to increase the intercultural potential of employees, which, in modern conditions, is a necessary condition for the effective functioning of the organization.

Thus, cross-cultural management can be defined as:

· managing “cultural diversity” - differences in business cultures and their value systems;

· identifying the causes of intercultural conflicts, ways to prevent and/or neutralize them;

· business management at the intersection and interaction of cultures;

· managing multicultural business teams.

Its tasks are:

· creation, development and management of technologies for cultural diversity - cross-cultural technologies,

· formation and development of “intercultural competence” of managers and employees in order to increase the efficiency of the organization in the context of economic globalization.

Cross-cultural management is the creation and application of technologies for managing cultural diversity in the context of economic globalization and reflects the profound changes occurring in modern society.

On the one hand, with the gradual replacement of vertical, hierarchical forms of management with horizontal, network forms - in information, in communication, in politics - the need to study individual factors, subjects of economic and political interaction increases.

On the other hand, an increase in the share of production of intangible goods (services, information products, education), characteristic of the economies of all developed countries in the modern “knowledge society,” also requires the use of cross-cultural technologies.

The tertiary sector, more than others, requires management based on cultural knowledge of both the producer and the consumer, which will be discussed later (in chapter 5) .

Cross-cultural management, therefore, is the development of management technologies that successfully operate in different cultures ah in order to prevent intercultural conflicts.

Entrepreneurship, going far beyond national boundaries, is drawing into its orbit an increasing number of people with different cultural backgrounds. As a result, cultural differences begin to play an increasing role in organizations and have a greater impact on the marginal performance of business activities. This is where they arise cross-cultural issues in international business - contradictions when working in new social and cultural conditions, caused by differences in thinking stereotypes between separate groups of people. The formation of human thinking occurs under the influence of knowledge, faith, art, morality, laws, customs and any other abilities and habits acquired by society in the process of its development.

In international business, cultural factors pose the greatest challenges. That is why the correct assessment of differences in national cultures and their adequate consideration are becoming more and more important.

The culture of any society requires knowledge of some of its effective criteria. In this regard, culture can be characterized by four criteria:

ü “the length of the hierarchical ladder” characterizes the perception of equality between people in society and in an organization. The greater the gap between the top and bottom, the longer the hierarchical ladder;

ü “depicting a state of uncertainty” concerns people’s attitude towards their future and their attempts to take fate into their own hands. The greater the degree of uncertainty, the more attempts are made to plan and control one's life;

ü “Individualism” expresses the desire of people to act independently or to give preference to group choices. The greater the preponderance towards personal freedom and personal responsibility, the higher the degree of individualism;

ü “masculinism” characterizes behavior and preferences for male and female values accepted in society. The stronger the masculine principle, the higher the masculinism.

Using the above criteria, 40 countries of the world were studied and eight cultural regions were identified: northern, English-speaking, German-speaking, more developed Romance-language, less developed Romance-language, more developed Asian, less developed Asian, Middle Eastern.

For example,the northern region is characterized by a short hierarchical ladder, high masculinism, a high degree of individualism and a medium degree of uncertainty. The German-speaking group is characterized by a longer hierarchical ladder, a high degree of masculinism and uncertainty, and a somewhat lower degree of individualism. Developing countries exhibit a long hierarchical ladder, a high degree of masculinism, and low values of individualism and uncertainty.

However, such structuring of culture is difficult to apply directly to international business, where differences in cultural cross-sections are of interest, on the one hand, for developing the correct behavior of the direct executors of a business program in a given market, and on the other, for constructing a behavioral model of the total consumer as the end point of the movement of any goods.

In international business, social aspects are very important. The predominance of individualism or collectivism has a great influence on the behavioral reactions of consumers. Likewise, the social stratification of society to a certain extent corresponds to the segmentation of markets, and social mobility- changes in this segmentation.

In our opinion, individualism presupposes a person’s actions, determined primarily by his interests, which increases the degree of risk. Collectivism, on the contrary, leads to the standardization of interests in the market of needs and presupposes a person’s desire to adhere to some average model of behavior in a group, which limits his freedom but reduces risk.

A priori, two types of individualism (1 and 2) and collectivism (1 and 2) are distinguished.

Individualism of the first type- this is “pure individualism”, which is based on the personal will of the individual. It can also be called “atomistic individualism”, since in this case the individual feels lonely, behaves in an original and independent way, sometimes becomes parasitic, i.e. a person with behavior deviating from general norms and standards. With this type of individualism, strong anarchist principles and opposition to the system of power and control are manifested.

Individualism of the second type- a derivative version of individualism, it contains elements of collectivism, since the individual easily accepts the restrictions imposed by others. This is a type of “mutually determined individualism”, since in its conditions a person feels his solidarity with others and behaves adequately to them, based on the principles of interdependence.

Collectivism of the first type- a derivative type of collectivism, it contains elements of individualism. It can be called "flexible or open collectivism" because it allows for a certain degree of voluntary participation by individuals. It can be considered an open or free system because it allows for active thinking and behavior of individuals. This type of collectivism is distinguished by progress and democracy, since decisions are usually made here on the basis of personal agreements or the opinion of the majority and the free expression of the individual is recognized. This collectivism requires the voluntary participation of individuals and is closely related to their democratic ideas.

Collectivism of the second type- “pure collectivism”. It can also be called “strict or rigid collectivism,” since in this version of collectivism active individual expression of will and participation is severely limited. This type of collectivism has strong conservative and sometimes totalitarian tendencies, since decisions are usually made on the basis of common law and unanimity in order to maintain existing structures. Collectivism is dominated by control from above and coercion.

Let's try to schematically give a reasonable differentiation of cultures and the degree of expression of collectivist and individual principles in them, as shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Scheme of differentiation of cultures according to the degree of expression of collectivist and individual principles in them

If we judge Japanese culture (see Figure 4.2.), then it should be classified as a combination of type 2 individualism and “flexible collectivism.” This type of culture, such as Scandinavian, can be considered as favorable for the implementation of the ideas of democracy, industrialism, and mass society. The “concern for reciprocity” characteristic of individualism of the second type is very effective in creating the idea of social equality in society, and “flexible collectivism”, which recognizes the active participation of individuals, creates the basis for the pursuit of social equality.

Moreover, in Japanese culture and other similarly structured cultures, tensions and disagreements between the group and its members are minimal due to the structural features that characterize them. Since individualism of the second type recognizes collectivist attitudes, and “flexible collectivism” recognizes the interests of individuals, the social distance between the individual and the group is reduced.

It is precisely because “flexible collectivism” and “mutual individualism” coexist in Japanese culture that it was able to succeed in organizing a highly developed mass society and maintain high level internal cultural stability. And at the same time, since Japanese culture is based on a combination of derivatives, rather than pure types of individualism and collectivism, its internal stability is not effective enough to withstand external pressure.

Japan is characterized by a combination of bureaucratic and democratic attitudes; Cooperation and equality are of particular value.

A typical example of a culture shaped by “atomistic individualism” and “flexible collectivism” is the United States. This culture is characterized by a mixture of anarchy and democracy; to these should be added a pronounced tendency towards competition and freedom.

Russia is a typical example of a culture that is still aligned with individualism of the second type and “strict collectivism”; it is characterized by the presence of bureaucratic attitudes, as well as an orientation towards coercion and uniformity. At the same time, as can be seen from Figure 4.2, the Russian mentality and national culture are most opposed to their North American counterparts. Despite this, it was the American model of management that was taken as an example of effective management, and the first textbooks on this discipline were translated American textbooks. Such a discrepancy long time required for adaptation American type management to the domestic mentality, was a brake on development for Russian companies and led to a significant increase in the cost of the consequences of economic and management reforms.

A typical example of a combination of “atomistic individualism” and “strict collectivism” can be found in Western European culture. We are talking about a culture that, due to its characteristic extreme forms of anarchy and autocracy, reveals a state of constant tension. In fact, it contains the origin of skeptical attitudes and the tendency to understand.

We can say that collectivism stimulates a tendency towards adaptive (Russia) and integrative (Japan) behavior, while individualism encourages the desire to create and achieve new goals and maintain latent (hidden) ones. social values(USA, Europe). As an example, let us give a comparative situation of two types of management.

Differences between national management systems are manifested, among other things, in their cultural incompatibility. Thus, the management systems of Japan and the United States are considered to be oppositely directed.

The influence of mentality on national management systems is manifested, for example, in the fact that Western and Eastern managers approach issues of “cooperation and competition” differently:

· In Japan, these two concepts are compatible. The Japanese believe that you can compete and cooperate (“both”) at the same time.

· Americans believe that competition and cooperation are incompatible (“either/or”).

When cooperating, they strive for individual benefit, while the Japanese are more inclined, thanks to Confucianism, to search for mutually beneficial solutions.

Attempts by Americans to adopt some techniques and elements of Japanese management fail. So, For example, The attempt of American managers to adopt the kan-ban system failed. Its idea: “to produce and deliver finished products just in time for their sale, components for the time of assembly of the finished product, individual parts - for the time of assembly of units, materials for the time of manufacturing parts” (12).

Using this system allows you to reduce costs, increase productivity and product quality. But only a few American enterprises were able to achieve this. The reason is the lack of commitment of workers to group efforts, to the specifics of the group atmosphere at work. Moreover, the Kanban system continuously strengthens group bonds and creates more and more favorable conditions to increase labor productivity and product quality.

The American management system turned out to be immune to the application of Japanese forms and methods of management. However, some elements of American management are successful in Japan.

In our opinion, this is explained by two factors:

· high adaptability and flexibility of the Japanese nation: “The Japanese are a Christian by faith, a Buddhist by philosophy and a Shintoist by views on society» .

· development of the Japanese mentality towards individualization.

This is due to:

1) economic growth;

2) the establishment of international markets and increased contacts of the Japanese with other nations;

3) the universal human tendency towards individualism, which finds expression in the increasing individualization of the individual in society.

The changing Japanese mentality has seen an increase in the desire for personal freedom. Pragmatism is becoming more and more clearly expressed, and there is some denial of the corporate spirit. The Japanese mentality is becoming increasingly character traits American and Western European.

This leads to growing contradictions between the changing Japanese mentality and the existing management. There is a need to bring them into line by reconstructing Japanese management. Moreover, the movement of the latter in the direction of acquiring more and more Americanized features is becoming more and more clear.

For example,A frequent phenomenon in the Japanese management system is the abandonment of lifelong employment and the seniority payment system in favor of calculations per unit of production. Reduction programs for workers who have reached retirement age are being adopted and implemented in view of the problem of the aging of the nation (14) and a number of others.

It is interesting to note that the works of American and Western European authors always note the advantageous position in which the Japanese manager finds himself in contrast to his Western European and American counterparts. First of all, it is noted that the Japanese manager simply does not have to deal with such “sore” issues as absenteeism, poor discipline, staff turnover, etc. This is due to the existence of a special moral and psychological climate, which helps Japanese companies achieve great practical success.

In Japan, it is difficult to reconcile the demands for improving overall organizational performance with individualism. Each employee is initially included in one group or another. The requirement to improve the efficiency of the entire organization is associated with traditional collectivism and aims to improve the performance of the group to which a given employee belongs. In general, the group adopts an internal structure that links all its members into a strictly ranked hierarchy.

When people in Japan talk about “individualism,” they mean selfishness, the immoral behavior of a person pursuing his own selfish interests. Any manifestations of individualism are always considered in the country as an encroachment on the interests of one or another social group. Individualism appears as a serious vice that deserves the most serious condemnation.

In Western societies, on the contrary, the desire for cohesion in the organization is weakly expressed. Management is focused on the individual and this management is assessed based on individual results. A business career is driven by personal results and accelerated career advancement. The main qualities of leadership in this management model are professionalism and initiative, individual control of the manager and a clearly formalized control procedure. There are also formal relationships with subordinates, compensation based on individual achievements and individual responsibility.

National business culture significantly influences various aspects of an organization's life - approaches to management and attitudes towards power, negotiating style, perception and implementation of laws, planning, forms and methods of control, personal and group relationships of people, etc. A large number of national business cultures existing in different countries, the growing openness of markets, globalization trends in the world economy create the need for multi-aspect research and taking into account the cross-cultural specifics of doing business in practical activities.

Knowledge of value systems, behavioral models and stereotypes, understanding of national and international characteristics of people’s behavior in different countries significantly increases management efficiency, makes it possible to achieve mutual understanding during business meetings and negotiations, resolve conflict situations and prevent the emergence of new ones. That is why the management of a company, which occurs on the border of two or more different cultures, arouses significant interest among both scientists and practitioners and today stands out as a separate branch of international management - cross-cultural management.

Cross-cultural management is the management of relationships that arise on the border of national and organizational cultures, the study of the causes of intercultural conflicts and their neutralization, the identification and use of behavioral patterns inherent in the national business culture when managing an organization.

Effective cross-cultural management means doing business together with representatives of other cultures, based on recognition and respect for cross-cultural differences and the formation of a common corporate value system that would be perceived and recognized by each member of a multinational team. We are talking about the formation of a specific corporate culture, which arose on the basis of national business cultures, harmoniously combining individual aspects of the culture of each nation, but not completely repeating any of them.

By national culture we mean a stable set of values, beliefs, norms, traditions and stereotypes accepted in a given country and internalized by an individual.

Geert Hofstede, one of the most respected experts in the field of cross-cultural management, described culture as the process of collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one group of people from another. The main element in this process is the value system, which is a kind of “backbone” of culture. “The sources of programming of each person’s mind are created by the social environment in which he is raised and gains life experience. This programming begins in the family, continues on the street, at school, in the company of friends, at work,” says Hofstede.

Culture is a multidimensional phenomenon. It has several levels and determines human psychology, consciousness and behavior.

Cultural conditioning is achieved through the influence of culture on a person at different levels: family, social group, geographical region, professional and national environment. The result of the impact is the formation national character and mentality that determine the specificity of business organization and management systems in a particular country.
Today, it is especially popular to manage business and project management using management systems in a single database, which allows you to create a comprehensive solution for project management throughout the organization.

Business culture is a system of formal and informal rules and norms of behavior, customs, traditions, individual and group interests, characteristics of employee behavior, leadership style, etc. in organizational structures of various levels. National business culture includes norms and traditions of business ethics, standards and rules business etiquette and protocol. It always reflects the norms, values and rules inherent in a given national culture.

National business and corporate cultures closely interact with each other. Cultural differences manifest themselves in all areas of organizational activity, so managers must develop tactics for conducting business and their own behavior so that, through respect and consideration of the cultural characteristics of the local population, they succeed in each country, and business conversation was mutually beneficial. After all, people belonging to different cultures can work in the same organization, have a common ultimate goal, but different views on the ways, methods and interactions in achieving it. Therefore, the behavior of some seems incorrect and irrational to others. And the task of international managers is to facilitate successful communication: to determine priorities, rational approaches, manage the behavior of workers and direct it in accordance with the basic principles of international cooperation. Managers must ensure clear interaction between all structural divisions, branches, people in each work group and between them, and establish interaction with external organizations and infrastructure. In addition, they must contribute to the implementation of plans not only within individual markets, but also in the global economic space. In conditions of interaction, interpenetration of different markets, management must be sensitive to the collision, interaction and interpenetration of different cultures.

With the expansion of international activities and influence in foreign markets in various fields The company's activities have significantly increased the number of new clients and partners. Two tasks become urgent:

1. Understand the cultural differences between “us” and “them” and how they manifest themselves.

2. Identify similarities between cultures and try to use them to achieve your own success.

So, it is clear that success in new markets largely depends on the cultural adaptability of the company and its employees: tolerance, flexibility, and the ability to appreciate the beliefs of others. If this is followed, then it is obvious that successful ideas are applicable to international practice and will be effective.

As is known, the first studies of the interaction of national business cultures were based on individual observations and experience of business practitioners and consultants on international issues and were often formulated in the form of rules for conducting international business:

1. There are no bad cultures! There are simply different cultures.

2. In international business, the seller (exporter) must adapt to the culture and traditions of the buyer (importer).

3. Newcomers and guests must adapt to local culture, traditions and customs.

4. You cannot contrast and compare local culture and the culture of your own country.

5. You cannot judge another culture or laugh at it.

6. You should never stop observing and learning.

7. It is necessary to be as patient as possible with your partner and tolerant of him.

S. Robinson identifies three main approaches to determining the role of the cultural factor in international business and, accordingly, conceptual directions for cross-cultural research:

1. Universalist approach - based on the fact that all people are more or less the same, the basic processes are common to everyone. All cultures are also basically the same and cannot significantly influence the efficiency of business. The universalist approach focuses on common, similar features management activities in different countries.

2. Economic-cluster approach - recognizes the differences in national cultures, but does not recognize the importance of taking them into account when conducting international business. Explains the presence of common features and differences in national management systems by the achieved level of economic development. It is believed that managers of international companies should analyze primarily the economic, rather than the cultural, features of doing business in different countries.

3. Cultural-cluster approach - is based on the recognition of the multifaceted influence of national culture on management and business, the need to take this influence into account and use the advantages of intercultural interaction to improve the efficiency of the company’s international activities.

All of these approaches enrich our understanding of management processes in a cross-cultural context.