Page 55 - Crossing Cultural Boundaries - Cees den Teuling

events and are bound to referrals to and glorification of origin of the own family, the (family) business, history and the national heritage. They are motivated by the desire to re-create and restore a “golden” century in history. Predecessors, ancestors and senior persons are shown respect and all positions and events are placed, viewed and discussed in a historical context. Present-oriented societies and their members are not giving much weight to the past nor future and are mainly dedicated to and orientated on current and actual directions, activities and goals, which are estimated as the utmost importance. Good planning, interest in present networks, relationships and orientation on the actual situation in the terms of contemporary style and impact is present in theses societies. In contrast, societies with a future-oriented attitude do not see the past as having a major significance in the determination what is to come in future and are focused on and characterised by deliberations on prospects, aspirations, achievements to come and potentials.
Ralston, Holt, Terpstra and Kai-Cheng (2008, p. 23) reported that their findings “substantially support the cross-vergence with cultural-dominant and suggest that the concept of global corporate culture can be feasible in the long term, especially if cross- convergence proves to be a transitional state, and values assimilation is a mutual process”. However, in this study it is argued that these findings are not particularly supportive for the global organisation concept in the short term, especially from the perspective of differences at the sub-dimensional level. There appear to be too many work value differences to make this concept presently realistic. Thus, these findings better support the multi-domestic approach as a reasonable strategy for international business today (Hofstede 1994 a). This implies that focusing effort on understanding and coordinating the different cultural values would be a more beneficial strategy than trying to force-fit them into a single corporate culture.
Giving room to local influences in case of a multi-national organisation’s subsidiary seems to be a more effective approach than pressing all into a single (corporate) mould. According to Smith (2011), it is requested to take into consideration the reasons why nations vary in the extremity of their dominating communication styles. It is widely accepted that the basis for the contrast between collectivistic and individualistic nations lies in the strength and nature of the bonds between individuals and groups. What might be the distinctive and, heretofore, neglected principle that drives differences in communication?
Communication is the essential mode to “bridge” cultural differences and to establish cultural awareness. As argued by Bennett, Bennett and Allen (2003) and
53