Intercultural Communication in Business for History-myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theIntercultural Communication in Business for History. Answer: The word Inter-cultural communication is defined as a positioned process of communication between individuals and communities of varied linguistic as well as cultural origins (Moran, Abramson and Moran 2014). In todays global business arena plays a vital role for successful product or service establishment in a different region of the globe. The significance of cross-cultural interaction is immense to establish any business as ineffective communication might result in misunderstandings and thus lead to broken relations with investors or clients(Chaney and Martin 2013). Such a case can be related to two popular cultures- Chinese and Australian business styles. The paper will evaluate a situation of an Australian entrepreneur who owns The Aroma Shop and a small factory situated in WaggaWagga.It will further focus on the cross-cultural business interaction of Mary, the entrepreneur with a renowned storemanager in China,Mr. Lau. It will further highlight the Chinese businessetiquettes, a nd examine areas of potential inter cultural communication with the use of Hofstede model of culture and providing suitable recommendations to address any issues related to it. The Chinese monarchy is considered as the most conventional dominion of the world that dates back to 841 BC(So and Walker 2013). It consists of excessive rigid traditions and rituals that justifies the Chinese society. In the same manner, the Chinese business culture isvery reserved and formal.There is an immense reliance on establishing and maintaining courteous associations in China, thus, greeting with proper usage of Chinese words at appropriate circumstances is considered as a key factor in the business communication process(Quanyu, Tong and Leonard 2013). The Chinese professionals appreciate in exchanging business cards using both hands that are printed in both English and Chinese during any business meetings. They believe in the importance of groups rather than individuals. They at the same time are intensely conservative when it comes to business attire(Mazanecet al.2015). Chinese professionals are highly appreciative to people who show respect to their cultures and etiquette s as it plays a central role while ascertaining any business alliance (Sugimoto 2014). Businesspersons in China take active participation in decision-making procedure. They believe in the involvement of each member of all hierarchy of an organization. Thus, this process of active participation of members leads to easy implementations(Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013). Chinese professionals believe in unhurried way of action duringnegotiation process and encourages uncovered proceedings that involved fundamental principles of mutual and shared interests. They follow a zero defect policy whereby there should be zero percent flawlessness and breaching to the assigned task is regarded as failure for the businessperson as the nation is sole leader oriented culture and appreciate similar approach from foreigners(Fiske, Hodge and Turner 2016). Even during initial business meetings, Chinese get gifts depending on the size of the company and type of business negotiation but strictly condemns expensiv e gifts as that might result in establishing a bribing potentiality within the business. Another vital factor of their business culture is the time arrival, which they firmly adhere to, and expects the same from their foreign guests(Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013). Several theorists study cultural dimensions and theories to study various aspects to guide the behavior of different cultures. One such researcher is Geer Hofstede, who is considered as an important researcher in cross-cultural studies. The significance of Hofstedes theory lies on two areas. Firstly, Hofstedes study diverts from verbal and non-verbal communication, which is associated to external expressions of the Tree Model, and thus it is more convenient to alter(Ching-Hwang 2013). The second area focuses on the outline of values, intense associations and moral guidance that causes difficulty in changing. Secondly, Hofstede has conducted a systematic research on these values and a cent point scale of measurement has been conducted. He has provided with six dimensions to have an explicit idea of the cultural dimensions of several countries. The dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long term versu s short-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint (Venaik and Brewer 2013. The first dimension is calledpower distance that is referred as the extent to which less influential members of the society recognize and expect that power be distributed unequally. In vast power distance cultures, each member deserves the correct position in social hierarchy (Hsu, Woodside and Marshall 2013). The notion of rightful place is important for understanding the culture globalbrands. Power and inequality are excessively fundamental aspects of any given society. According to Hofstede, every society is unequal but few societies are disparate than others are. The second dimension is related to uncertainty avoidance is not that much related to risk avoidance. It generally deals with the tolerance level of the society for ambiguity. This indicates the way culture programs make their members feel in various unstructured situations(Moran, Abramson and Moran 2014). Amorphous scenarios are novel, unidentified, surprising and different from the ordinary. Cultures dealing with unsure situations try to decrease the prospects of such circumstances through stern behavioral codes and conducts. According to few researches, uncertainty accepting cultures are prone to tolerance of view different their usage(Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013). People belonging to these cultures are more phlegmatic and introspective and not allowed by their environment to express emotions. The third dimension mentions about the individualism and collectivism in the social perspective. Individualism differs from collectivism as the latter deals with societal perspectives and not an individual characteristic(Fiske, Hodge and Turner 2016). Individualism is referred to the degree to which members of the society are free and are considered to look after individual families. On the other side, collectivism is considered to discover cultures where people from the time of birth are more integrated into strong, interrelated groups, which are often stretched to families that believe in securing themselves from unquestioning loyalty, exchange (Frijnset al. 2013). The concept of individualism prevails in developed western regions whereas collectivism exists in less developed eastern countries while China occupies a position in the middle on this dimension. The fourth dimension is referred to masculinity in opposition to femininity. This dimension has a general characteristic rather than individualism. It refers to the allocation of values between genders that is another primary issue for the society (Moran, Abramson and Moran 2014). The space between the values of men and women is largest in China and Australia. In both these regions, men score higher for exhibiting masculine values and attitudes whereas women gain relatively highly for masculine values. The fifth dimension identified by Hofstede is long term and short-term orientation which deals with the concept of the relation of a society with its past in order to cope up with current and potential risks of the society (Mazanec et al. 2015). The sixth and new aspect that Hofstede has mentioned is the polarity between indulgence and restraint. Indulgence refers to the society that permits relatively free gratification of natural human desires. According to Hofstedes power distance, the power distance in Australia is considered relatively low and specifies to greater range of equality between societal levels such as government and social organizations (Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013). On the other hand, Chinese power distance has high rate of power distance that results in members of an organization to possess greater power and authority than the others. They generalize the notion of status and power with a section of the society considered as superior because of their social status, gender and race than the others who have not advantageous enough to receive such ascribed status (Smith et al. 2013). A high level of individualismis also noticed in the Australian culture whereas China shows a high level of collectivism and group orientation in their culture. The latter emphasizes a very strong group harmony and interdependence(Fiske, Hodge and Turner 2016). Hofstedes dimensions on cultural difference also focus on the masculinity an d femininity dimension on the role dissemination between genders. The masculinity dimension is higher in China than Australia, as Australia reflects cultural assertiveness, material success, confidence and individual accomplishments (Fiske, Hodge and Turner 2016). Australia is regarded as a universalistic culture where agreements and contracts are based on the terms of business and laws are applied to every citizen of the country whereas China reflects something dissimilar from the former. A set of recommendationsmust be provided for an effective business meeting between Mary and Mr. Lau. Mary, belonging from a Western country must honor the value of time as Chinese have an excessive ability of punctuality. Chinese believe in silence at a business setting and consider it as a key to wisdom and self-control. Thus, Mary shall not indulge in speaking excess and giving excess of information as this might hinder the meeting. Furthermore, Mary must consider the masculinity aspect of the Chinese. Thus, Mary, in order to conduct a smooth conversation with Mr. Lau must keep in mind the varying ideologies of men in China and her own country. Lastly, she needs to honor Chinese culture and avoid any miscommunication related to the cultural disparity between the two countries. Therefore, from the above discussion it can be analyzed that a wide gap lies between the cultural dimensions of Australia and China. This essay has evaluated the cultural traditions and business etiquettes that Chinese business professionals follow to establish successful and effective businesses. It also focused on the cultural framework through Hofstedes cultural framework to understand various cultural aspects. Lastly, this paper explored cultural discrepancies of China and Australia and further provided recommendations that will be beneficial for the Australian businessperson Mary to conduct an effective business conversation with Mr. Lau for her business expansion in China. References Chaney, L. and Martin, J., 2013.Intercultural business communication. Pearson Higher Ed. Ching-Hwang, Y., 2013.Ethnic Chinese business in Asia: History, culture and business enterprise. World Scientific. Fiske, J., Hodge, B. and Turner, G., 2016.Myths of Oz: reading Australian popular culture. Routledge. Frijns, B., Gilbert, A., Lehnert, T. and Tourani-Rad, A., 2013. Uncertainty avoidance, risk tolerance and corporate takeover decisions.Journal of Banking Finance,37(7), pp.2457-2471. Hsu, S.Y., Woodside, A.G. and Marshall, R., 2013. Critical tests of multiple theories of cultures consequences: Comparing the usefulness of models by Hofstede, Inglehart and Baker, Schwartz, Steenkamp, as well as GDP and distance for explaining overseas tourism behavior.Journal of Travel Research,52(6), pp.679-704. Lee, S.G., Trimi, S. and Kim, C., 2013. The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption.Journal of World Business,48(1), pp.20-29. Mazanec, J.A., Crotts, J.C., Gursoy, D. and Lu, L., 2015. Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a single nation.Tourism Management,48, pp.299-304. Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R. and Moran, S.V., 2014.Managing cultural differences. Routledge. Quanyu, H., Tong, C. and Leonard, J.W., 2013.Business decision making in China. Routledge. Smith, P.B., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V.L. and Bond, M.H., 2013.Understanding social psychology across cultures: Engaging with others in a changing world. Sage. So, Y.L. and Walker, A., 2013.Explaining guanxi: The Chinese business network. Routledge. Venaik, S. and Brewer, P., 2013. Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models.International Marketing Review,30(5), pp.469-482.