International intercultural management Assignment

International intercultural management - Assignment Example 2. Hofstede’s Model in Relation to Cultural Aspects Every nation has its own set of standards that define the culture in terms of thinking, being and acting, and these differences have a very strong impact on the business communication and workplace values in any organization. Something that may be considered perfectly normal and natural in an organization of one country can be frowned upon and seen as offensive in another. Values will always differ across cultures. Therefore, we have to understand these varying differences in order to describe and forecast employee behaviour from various countries. Some cultures value decisions that are made in a group, while others think that the leader should take control of the decision-making. For almost all business organizations, it is crucial to be aware of how the cultures will affect the workplace values because it will provide them with a framework of assessing the different dimensions. One of the most determined studies of the cult ural differences and how they influence organizational issues was commenced by Geert Hofstede, a Dutch scholar which involved data on more than 116,000 employees of IBM representing forty countries. Many of these dimensions will be based on Geert Hofstede’s framework for assessing cultures (Brown, 2009). It is important to understand where the values across cultures stem from, or what the source is. Previous research has identified two clear forces that have an impact on the formation of values that managers who are engaged in international business possess (Ronen, 1986; Webber, 1969). These two forces can be categorized into national culture as well as business environment. Both the culture of the nation and the environment the business operates in will have a significant influence on the values that an organization will possess. Triandis et al. (1986) brings forth the proposal that a way to have an understanding of the culture is to identify the dimensions of the variations in the culture of the organization such as Hofstede (1980). In a study including more by Geert Hofstede, it was found out there were four basic dimensions along with work-related values that differed across cultures: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and individualism/collectivism. Later on, work by Bond presented with a fifth dimension i.e. the long-term/short-term orientation. Power Distance is related to the extent to which a culture’s members accept an imbalanced distribution of power. Hofstede’s Power distance Index measures the degree to which the less dominant members of establishments and institutions accept the unequal distribution. This will almost always represent discrimination, but defined from below instead of above. It proposes that a society’s level of variation is recognised by the followers as much as by the leaders. If we look at France, we see that the power distance index is comparatively higher than the rest of the countries; around 68. This means that in the management as well as the general lifestyle of France there is a big gap between the social classes, and there are clear definitions of status involved.

The law of contract demonstrates that the courts cling to an outdated Essay

The law of contract demonstrates that the courts cling to an outdated vision of the market, which privileges certainty, form and - Essay Example Equality as an opposing principle practiced under capital regimes exposes the markets to uncertainty before the courts with regard to compliance with the law of contract. Certainty is a key theme in courts of equity, which comes at a cost of overlooking relationships and fair dealings in the modern contract law setting. This implies that the government through the judiciary intervenes in various spheres of market operations by enforcing stipulated contract rules and procedures against all odds of relationships and fair dealings.4 The privilege given to certainty in contract law is seen in many cases, a case in point being Gibson v Manchester City Council.5 In the case, the Court of Appeal held that no contract had been established between the two parties, considering that the council’s letter did not present a contractual offer. In this case, there was no certainty regarding the offer. Another case that exemplifies the privilege given to certainty is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke B all Company.6 In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a contract had been formed between Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Carlill, considering that the advert posted by the latter regarding the effectiveness of the product on offer presented all the elements of a binding contract.78 Certainty in the terms of the contract is emphasized in the words of Lord Justice Lindley ‘We are dealing with an express promise to pay $100 in certain events’.9 Freedom of contract encompasses the ideals of fairness and equality10. Equity as the main principle in contract law provides for certainty and clarity against other factors that complicate a judge’s perception of wisdom11. A formalized set of rules in the contract law jurisprudence affects the free market setting in which the modern economic procedures take place. In the description of the free market economies, application of a strict and rigid legal regime often translates into complication of freedom of contract, as th e economy requires. In this discussion, the principles of contract law in force illustrate the apparent disconnect with the freedom of contract, relationships and fair dealing. Mitigating principles under contract law implies that the parties to a contract must accept the exchange value forwarded by the other party to avoid sustaining avoidable loss.12 In terms of fairness interpretation, mitigation principles may not apply in cases where the relationship between the parties does not allow such cooperation as would reduce loss. Market setting based on business rivalry and competition may not allow such conditions as would enable the parties to partake in contractual obligations of mitigating losses even when aggrieved. In terms of remoteness as observed in Transfield Shipping Inc. v Mercator Shipping Inc. (The Achilleas),13 mitigation is particularly difficult in realization of contractual obligations. It is impossible for mitigating procedures to be distinguished from acceptance of the contract, which makes contract law unfair on