Business Across Culture

This report discusses the Hofstede model of national culture and its dimensions. It explores the criticism of the model and its implications for cross-border business development. The report also examines the case of Bright Food Group's acquisition of Weetabix and the cultural challenges faced. It highlights the role of national culture in influencing organizational behavior.

Running head: BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Business across culture
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................2
Critical assessment of Hofstede model of national culture:.......................................................2
Explaining the criticism of the model:.......................................................................................5
Identification of an example of cross border business development:........................................6
Assessment of national culture in influencing the behavior and actions of organization:.........7
Explaining the issues faced by Bright Food Group based on Hofstede dimension:..................8
Assessment of national culture inventory:.................................................................................9
Conclusion:..............................................................................................................................11
References list:.........................................................................................................................12

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Introduction:
The report is prepared to demonstrate the understanding of the dimension of the
Hofstede model of national culture. In this regard, a detailed explanation has been conducted
that includes the development of the model and the criticism faced by the model. Explanation
of the model has been done by illustrating few cross country comparison that has helped in
gaining an in depth detail of the model. In addition to this, the report also elucidates the
development of cross border business and evaluating the impact of the national cultural
differences on such business. Such development of business is evaluated in terms of two
dimensions that are national culture and organizational culture inventory. National culture
where the business has been expanded is explained in term of the cultural challenges faced
and its outcome and how the model assisted in determining the failure or success of such
business (Almklov et al. 2018). Furthermore, the culture inventory of organization is
explained in terms of their role in determining the failure and success of the business.
Discussion:
Critical assessment of Hofstede model of national culture:
A framework that revolves around the cross cultural communication is constituted in
the cultural dimension theory of Hofstede. The impact of culture that is ingrained in the
society on the member values of the society is collectively portrayed by the dimensions of the
model. In addition to this, the relationship between the behavior and values are described
using the structure that is based on the factor analysis. The dimension of culture forms an
important facet as far as international expansion or business is concerned. Managers are able
to successfully sail and understand across the international business market by gaining the

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
knowledge about the different feature of business that is views in the different culture of
business (Schnackenberg and Tomlinson 2016).
The Hofstede model was the outcome of the factor analysis that was done on the
employee’s value system at IBM between the years 1967 and 1973 at the global level. The
model proposed four dimensions originally and fifth dimension and sixth dimension was
devised by Hofstede. Explanation of the dimensions of the model is done by illustrating the
country comparison between Chin and United Kingdom (Boateng et al. 2017). The six
cultural dimensions of Hofstede model are explained below.
Power distance- The consequence of inequality of power relations in the society is
depicted by this dimension which varies depending upon the educational, social and
occupational level. The implication of the power inequality is that the powerless side
becomes the subordinate the side that is more powerful (Block and Walter 2017). UK has
lower ranking in the power distance index with a score of 35 which is indicative of the fact
that inequalities and ranking social estate between the people are low. On other hand, China
has higher ranking of this particular index at 80 which implies that the country accepts
inequality among people. ‘There is a polarization of superior subordinate relationship and the
formal authority influences the individual.
Uncertainty avoidance- This dimension depicts the attitude of society when they are
faced with an unclear, unstructured and unpredictable situation and focuses on the tolerance
of ambiguity and uncertainty within a society. Both the countries that is UK AND china
scored low on this particular dimension at the value of 35 and 30. The Chinese and British
people do not care about what brings to them and the affecting results do not influence them.
However, the absolute true and fair view and more conformity are respected by the British
people more than Chinese (Qiu and Homer 2018).

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Collectivism versus individualism- The individual in relation to the society is
reflected by this particular dimension and people in an individualistic society place their
individual goal such as family and personal interest above the interest of group. On other
hand, member in collective society place the group of interest above their personal interest.
UK with a score of 89 is much higher than the average level compared to other western
countries and people from such culture value the expression over agreement and uniqueness
over harmony and they are highly individualistic. On contrary to this, China with a score of
20 has highly collectivist culture where the corporate relationship with colleagues would be
negotiated and their own interest is treated as subordination (Li et al. 2016). Chinese do not
consider the advantage if they are a part of the group.
Femininity versus masculinity- Every society reflects this particular cultural
dimension of masculinity and feminism. Men in a masculine society are believed to be more
competitive, ambitious, and aggressive and achievement oriented. Feminine society on other
hand gives more importance to life quality compared to materiality success. China and UK
have similarities in this particular cultural dimension as they both scored 66 because of fast
economic development and traditional feudal hierarchy (Venaik and Brewer 2016).
Nevertheless, the same score does not mean that the situation is totally similar in both the
countries. Masculinity in China is characterized by features of solid traditional role of male
achievement. On other hand, masculinity society of Britain is highly driven, success oriented
and emphasizes on gender equality.
Short term orientation versus long term orientation- This dimension is based on
the dynamism of Confucian and has been added later to the Hofstede model. Such dynamism
relies on the principle such as unequal relationship, virtuous behavior towards other, family
being the prototype for social organizations and virtue relating to life’s task that consist of
effort to acquire educations, skills, preserving and being patient. With regard to short term

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
orientation, UK is typically western countries and they are focus on resolving the issue as
soon as possible and tackle issues in smaller parts. On other hand, China with a high score of
118 is highly long term oriented society and every aspect of life of Chinese is permeated by
the spirit of persistent and perseverance (Mazanec et al. 2015).
Explaining the criticism of the model:
The model is widely used in explaining the delineation of interaction between the
culture and management. However, there is always a heated debate about the ability of model
in systematically expressing the cross cultural communication and different behavior between
the members from different nations or region. It was assumed by Hofstede that the culture
like occupational and organizational culture has been diminished with focus on variety of
values within nation’s variety. The model of Hofstede was criticized by Hofstede himself and
there were recognized critics of the model. One of the critics is the nation as a unit of analysis
as it is said by some scholars that the sub cultures in a country cannot be represented by the
nation and they are the unit that only facilitates comparison and they can be used as a variable
that is representative of culture (Gochhayat et al. 2017). Furthermore, the sample used by
Hofstede does not represent the national culture. Some of the researcher criticized the model
by claiming that the study is too old to be of any modern value particularly with
internationalization, rapidly changing global environment in today’s world and convergence.
Information about culture difference between countries cannot be given by only five to six
dimensions and there should be additional dimensions which are believed to be added as a
continuation of this work (Bauer et al. 2016).
Furthermore, the knowledge about the entire cultural system of any country cannot be
provided by a study that is fixated on any one project or case study of company. It was
pointed out by Hofstede in this regard that he merely intended to gauge the cultural

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
differences and was not making absolute measures. Moreover, the outcomes pertaining to the
uncertainty avoidance and masculinity might be sensitive to the timing of survey. Therefore,
evaluating the implication of such cultural dimensions using any case examples would not be
able to completely explain the differences in culture.
The criticism of Hofstede work that claimed it to be decentered because of shortfall of
one company response in which the respondents respond according to their own interest and
need. The study of GLOBE in this regard is considered to be more effective and referred to
the study to country co investigators and they agreed upon the leadership definition after
several discussion. The country co investigators came up with the comprehensive dimensions
of leadership and culture after working six months on ascertaining of interviews. GLOBE
creates distinction between practice and cultural values and they define culture as beliefs,
values, pattern and norms of particular group (Guiso et al. 2015). In developing the
understanding of value of culture by separating values from practice, precise steps are taken
by the GLOBE.
Some other multiple dimensional models such as Trompenaars were also introduced
for understanding the differences in cross culture. Such analysis identified seven value
dilemmas and such values formed the basis of value judgments and enterprise value system.
The internal management of organization provides direction for operations and activities and
it must be shown by the management that they have well managed and effective relationship
with the external and internal forces.
Identification of an example of cross border business development:
The business activities are majorly impacted by the differences in national culture and
the awareness of culture results in success of international business venture. However, there
has been little progress in research literature in explaining the role which is played by culture

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
in the success or failure of such ventures. The reason why the merger o acquisition or joint
venture has not produced the outcome which the organizations have hoped for are because of
the poor culture fit (Dai and Nahata 2016). Instead they add to the challenges of having to
deal with both the organizational and national differences in culture.
In the present situation, the acquisition of the breakfast cereal producer of United
Kingdom with the Bright Food group company Limited of China is explained in the context
of cultural differences between the countries using Hofstede Model of cultural dimension.
Bright Food group limited is the second largest food manufacturing company based in China.
The organization acquired the Weetabix Food Company which is the second largest branded
manufacturers of cereal and cereal bars in the United Kingdom. Such acquisition has been
done with the hope that cereal would become popular in China and they would adopt the
general trend towards more western eating habits. With the acquisition of Weetabix,
consumers have started purchasing cereals and the sales of Weetabix have risen (Ey.com
2019). However, the market share has been disappointed because the popular breakfast
staples included steamed bread and traditional rice. The objective of such acquisition was to
increase the total number of customers globally by way of strengthening the portfolio in
diversifying and stable categories in stable into new markets.
With such acquisition, there has been change in the role of management and the
people managing the change along with the total number of employees. It was perceived that
the new owners of company would help the company to grow and help in opening the door to
expansion (Gunkel et al. 2015). The integration of two companies would be managed by the
chief executive of Weetabix.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Assessment of national culture in influencing the behavior and actions of organization:
This section comprised of two parts that deals with the explanation of dimension of
national culture concerning how the national culture influences the behavior and action of
organization. Furthermore, the organizational inventory culture is explained in terms of the
role played by corporate culture in determining the success or failure of acquisition.
Explaining the issues faced by Bright Food Group based on Hofstede dimension:
The success or failure of the acquisition of Weetabix by Bright Food can be explained
with the help of Hofstede cultural dimension model.
 It can be seen that the Weetabix would be operating in China after getting acquired by
Bright Food where the community is from a culture that exhibits high power distance
index wherein the employees and subordinates are accustomed to follow their senior
instead of doing it in a democratic way. On contrary, the senior executive of Weetabix
comes from the culture where power distance index is low which has flatter structure
of power and they subordinates and authorities work on more or less equal terms
(Peterson and Barreto 2018). Therefore, there is the possibility of the issue pertaining
to management and might become difficult to manage the people of organization.
 Secondly, China is more collectively oriented and the executives belong from the
society that is individualistic oriented. Therefore, the community of China would give
preference to the opinion of group rather than individual opinion and they also would
have lower commitment.
 Since the community of China has high power distance and low uncertainty
avoidance, the employees of Bright Food and Weetabix are more inclined towards
organizing themselves as an extended family. The main authority is lying with the
chief executive of Weetabix and the ultimate course of action would be decided by

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
him. However, the adaptability and entrepreneurship feature of Chinese would help in
seamless operation of company. In the event of power abuse by chief executives who
is from UK, the employees of China would not defend which might result in their
exploitation (Popli et al. 2016).
 Both the countries have masculine society which implies that the leisure time is not
important for the employees and they are willing to work for late hours and contribute
to the success of organization. Therefore the performances of employees are driven by
success as they are success oriented and this will help in improving the performance
of employees (Amankwah et al. 2018).
It has been found from research that the integration of corporate culture is the greatest
challenge that is faced by enterprise of China in overseas operations of business along with
avoiding talent drain, retention problems in overseas business management and attracting
talent. Therefore, the enterprise has difficulty in realizing the cultural integration of
subsidiaries overseas and lacking understanding of the cultural background of the country.
Assessment of national culture inventory:
This section demonstrates the role played by corporate culture in determining the
success or failure of such acquisition. The fastest strategic option that is used by company to
face global market is acquisition and merger and the clash of corporate culture is often cited
for the failure of such strategy. Hence, it is essential to explain the role of corporate culture in
the success or failure of such venture. The culture of organization can be measure by using
the tool of organizational cultural inventory that measures the current culture in behavioral
norms term (Du and Boateng 2015). Additionally, it is not required to make an argument
about the importance of corporate culture on the organizational performance and behavior.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
The Bright Food group has taken a major step to meet its goal of building a global
distribution network and they have accelerated their drive to access the international market
using acquisition as their strategic option. The difference in corporate culture has resulted in
slower growth of the strategic deal of Bright Food group with that of Weetabix. The western
culture that is UK, company emphasize on creating flexible working environment and
employee friendly management and work life balance is valued by employees (Monaghan
2017). On other hand, the corporate culture in China place greater importance on dedication
and diligence and the employees are accustomed to long working hours and working
overtime. Such opposite corporate cultures can results in friction and such difference would
affect the business operations and cooperation on both the sides. This can be explained with
the help of an instance, the foreign colleagues of Weetabix complained about the excess
working hours of employees of China while the executives at the Bright Food Group were
unhappy that their foreign colleagues did not attend their calls during weekend (López et al.
2016). Therefore, such difference in corporate culture between UK and China is likely to
disrupt the business operations and ultimately the expected benefits from such strategic
option. Moreover, the key factors relating to the problem of employee retention and local
talent attraction are that the foreign employees are reluctant to be managed by the enterprise
in China and change in the corporate culture of target. It has been ascertained that the
difficulty in integrating corporate culture lies in the fact that sometime the concept is
misinterpreted as cultural migration despite the fact that it is well known on part of Chinese
enterprise that the key to success of overseas acquisition is cultural integration (Li and Wan
2016).
In order to obtain overseas benefits and become more global, the enterprise must be
internally consistent with the business strategy and corporate culture and they should be set as
a pre requisite. Therefore, for successful acquisition, it is required by the enterprise to

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
conduct an in depth investigation into the personnel status, personnel structure of target,
benefits and compensation along with assessing the risk of losing the core team during the
due diligence of human resource. Enterprise should also seek to establish an inclusive and
diversified business environment so that the business can be managed in a more flexible
manner (Chaudhr et al. 2016).
Conclusion:
The Hofstede dimensions of culture helps in explaining the cultural difference
between different regions by giving an explanation of each of the dimension. However, the
model is criticized on several grounds which provide the basis of the fact that sometimes the
model cannot be sufficient in explaining the success or failure of business development. The
above discussion presents the evaluation of the acquisition of Food Company of UK by
Chinese Food Company using Hofstede cultural dimension. It was ascertained from the
analysis that the integration of culture and lack of understanding of different cultural
background was the main challenge which the company is facing. In light of this, it can be
inferred that more priority should be given on enterprise investigation mainly cultural due
diligence in the beginning of acquisition in addition to searching target and making strategy.
The enterprise in China should consider establishment of cultural due diligence team.
Chinese companies attach great importance to the national cultural difference because of
cultural differences between western and Chinese culture. The cultural differences can be
roughly assessed by cultural group through the national cultural distance measurement.
Therefore, Bright Food can ascertain national cultural distance using cultural dimension
theory of Hofstede.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
References list:
Almklov, P.G., Antonsen, S., Bye, R. and Øren, A., 2018. Organizational culture and societal
safety: Collaborating across boundaries. Safety science, 110, pp.89-99.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Boso, N. and Antwi-Agyei, I., 2018. The effects of business failure
experience on successive entrepreneurial engagements: An evolutionary phase model. Group
& Organization Management, 43(4), pp.648-682.
Bauer, F., Matzler, K. and Wolf, S., 2016. M&A and innovation: The role of integration and
cultural differences—A central European targets perspective. International Business
Review, 25(1), pp.76-86.
Block, J.H. and Walter, S.G., 2017. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and modes of entry into
entrepreneurship. In Exploring the Entrepreneurial Society. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Boateng, A., Du, M., Wang, Y., Wang, C. and Ahammad, M.F., 2017. Explaining the surge
in M&A as an entry mode: home country and cultural influences. International Marketing
Review, 34(1), pp.87-108.
Chaudhry, A., Yuan, L., Hu, J. and Cooke, R.A., 2016. What matters more? The impact of
industry and organizational factors on organizational culture. Management Decision, 54(3),
pp.570-588.
Dai, N. and Nahata, R., 2016. Cultural differences and cross-border venture capital
syndication. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2), pp.140-169.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Du, M. and Boateng, A., 2015. State ownership, institutional effects and value creation in
cross-border mergers & acquisitions by Chinese firms. International Business Review, 24(3),
pp.430-442.
Ey.com., 2019. [online] Available at: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-china-
overseas-investment-report-issue-6-en/$FILE/EY-china-overseas-investment-report-issue-6-
en.pdf [Accessed 25 Apr. 2019].
Gochhayat, J., Giri, V.N. and Suar, D., 2017. Influence of organizational culture on
organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational communication. Global
Business Review, 18(3), pp.691-702.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. and Zingales, L., 2015. The value of corporate culture. Journal of
Financial Economics, 117(1), pp.60-76.
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., Rossteutscher, T. and Wolff, B., 2015. The human aspect of cross-
border acquisition outcomes: The role of management practices, employee emotions, and
national culture. International Business Review, 24(3), pp.394-408.
Huang, Z., Zhu, H. and Brass, D.J., 2017. Cross‐border acquisitions and the asymmetric
effect of power distance value difference on long‐term post‐acquisition
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38(4), pp.972-991.
Kim, S., 2017. National culture and public service motivation: investigating the relationship
using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 83(1_suppl), pp.23-40.
Li, J. and Wan, G., 2016. China's Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions: A Contextual
Distance Perspective. Management and Organization Review, 12(3), pp.449-456.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Li, J., Li, P. and Wang, B., 2016. Do cross-border acquisitions create value? Evidence from
overseas acquisitions by Chinese firms. International Business Review, 25(2), pp.471-483.
López‐Duarte, C., Vidal‐Suárez, M.M. and González‐Díaz, B., 2016. International business
and national culture: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 18(4), pp.397-416.
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.
Monaghan, A., 2017. Weetabix sold to US firm after breakfast cereal fails to catch on in
China. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/weetabix-sold-us-firm-cereal-fails-catch-
on-china-breakfast [Accessed 25 Apr. 2019].
Peterson, M.F. and Barreto, T.S., 2018. Interpreting societal culture value
dimensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(9), pp.1190-1207.
Popli, M., Akbar, M., Kumar, V. and Gaur, A., 2016. Reconceptualizing cultural distance:
The role of cultural experience reserve in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of World
Business, 51(3), pp.404-412.
Qiu, T. and Homer, P.M., 2018. Cultural Fit and the Choice of International Market Entry
Scale of Chinese Firms. Journal of Global Marketing, 31(5), pp.308-323.
Schnackenberg, A.K. and Tomlinson, E.C., 2016. Organizational transparency: A new
perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of
Management, 42(7), pp.1784-1810.

BUSINESS ACROSS CULTURE
Venaik, S. and Brewer, P., 2016. National culture dimensions: The perpetuation of cultural
ignorance. Management learning, 47(5), pp.563-589.