Cross-Cultural Management: Cambodia vs. Turkey Report

This report, prepared for a Cross-Cultural Management course, provides a comparative analysis of the cultures of Cambodia and Turkey, focusing on various cultural dimensions as defined by Geert Hofstede. The report examines key aspects such as power distance, leadership styles, value systems, collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, communication styles, and decision-making processes. It highlights the differences and similarities between the two cultures, providing insights into how these cultural variations impact business practices, leadership approaches, and communication strategies. The report also touches upon historical backgrounds, offering context to the cultural dimensions discussed. Furthermore, it explores how cultural differences can affect team management and business negotiations in these two countries, making it a valuable resource for understanding and navigating cross-cultural business environments. The report is a student contribution to Desklib, a platform offering AI-based study tools and resources.

KING’S OWN INSTITUTE
MGT 201
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
MEMBERS:
MAHABUB ISLAM - 11501418
SALLY WIENATA – 11600029
EDER RAMOS LALIC - 11502065
PERISHA POUDEL - 11501220
MIHYUN PARK - 11401216
TITLE:
CULTURAL MANAGEMENT BETWEEN
CAMBODIA AND TURKEY
20 August 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cultural is a very interesting topic for an open discussions or sharing experiences
from all over the world. Looking at today’s business developments, in every business
sector are growing and expanding more and more businesses in different countries.
Yet, we agree that people from one another country might have just working in
another country with totally different cultural backgrounds. In this report, we are
discussing about the different cultural dimensions specifically from the country of
Cambodia and Turkey in related to Professor Hofstede’s theories.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title ………………………………………………………………………………... 1
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………….. 2
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………..3
I. History of Cambodia and Turkey……………………………………………... 4
II. Cross-Cultural Issues ………………………………………………………… 5
a. Power Distance ……………………………………………………………. 5
b. Leadership Style …………………………………………………………… 5
c. Value System ………………………………………………………………. 6
d. Collectivism Vs. Individualism ……………………………………………. 6
e. Feminity vs. Masculinity …………………………………………………………………… 6
f. Communications ……………………………………………………………………………… 7
g. Decisions Making ……………………………………………………………………………… 7
h. Managing Team ……………………………………………………………………………….. 9
i. How business negotiation is done……………………………………………9
III. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Reference
3

I. HISTORY OF CAMBODIA AND TURKEY
The name Cambodia is derived from the French word Cambodge that came from
the word Khmer that means, “born of Kambu”. Cambodia is located between
Vietnam and Thailand under the mainland Southeast Asia. The most central place
economically and culturally is lowland flood plain of Tonle Sap Lake and
Mekong River. Though Cambodia has coastline on Thailand that coast is
separated from central flood plain through the mountains. Thereafter, during
1950s roads and railroads were constructed for providing ready access to coastal
port towns (Mazanec et al. 2015). The economy of the country is dominated by
the agriculture of wet rice and the iconic image of countryside is one of the rice
paddies that are scattered with sugar palms. The people of Cambodia mostly
speak in Khmer language and the people mainly belong to the Vietnamese, Mon
and various other Asian languages.
On the other hand, Turkey is located at crossroads of Balkans, Middle East,
Caucasus and the eastern Mediterranean. About population and territory Turkey
is among larger nations and the land area of Turkey is more than any of the
European state. Turkey’s modern history started in the beginning of the 20th
century and after the country became republic, the leaders from Turkey started
working for modernizing the location and brought various fragments together that
was formed during war. The economy of the country is still developing and it is
the wide mix of traditional agriculture and modern industry and 30% of the
country’s employment consists of agriculture (Bakir et al. 2015). Major
agricultural products of Turkey are hazelnuts, citrus, sugar beets, grains, cotton,
tobacco and livestock and the main industries of Turkey are food processing,
textiles, electronics, petroleum, steel, paper, lumber and construction. Turkey’s
climate is temperate and has wet and mild winters, dry and high summers.
4

II. CULTURAL DIMENSION
Based on the Dictionary Website, “culture is the behaviours and beliefs
characteristic of particular social, ethnic, or age group.” In other words, culture
is relating to behaviours and beliefs that means not everyone as per person,
group, or even country is having the same values. Hence, cultures can gradually
change over time. Mentioning about cultural dimensions, here are some of the
dimensions that we are going to discuss which formed by Hofstede. Geert
Hofstede conducted the most comprehensive studies on national values
(Hofstede, 2017).
a. Power Distance
The Hofstede’s power concept describes the power distance as a degree by which
a person feels comfortable with uneven distribution of power or authority within
a given setup or organization. The Cambodian power is one that exhibits a high
level of power distance when compared to the Turkish power. The Cambodian
culture … “honors referent powers, and perceives a clear delineation between
superiors and subordinates and between the young and the old … Obedience,
respect, and allegiance to superiors or those in power are considered highly
desirable” (Selvarajah, Meyer& Davuth, 2012).
The Cambodian culture can be described as hierarchical. The high power distance
in Cambodia affects several aspects of the Cambodian society as several conflicts
come by with time. Equally, Cambodia exhibits a high level of collectivism.
On the concept of power distance Turkey equally scores high with a score of 66
on the power distance aspect and 37 on the individualism score. This means that
turkey is more of a collectivistic society. In turkey we are more important than I,
people have a duty to belong to in groups like organizations, clans, and
families.in these groups they take care of one another with the exchange to
loyalty. This is the same case as Cambodia, in both the two communities the
people values unity more than anything else; leading to a well-integrated and
cohesive society.
b. Leadership Style
The Cambodian leadership style still moves in the direction of the power
distance. The type leadership style that is utilized in Cambodia depends on the
individuals view on the power concept on whether they are comfortable with
working under the power of others. In Cambodian, the power hierarchy is
observed, and the subjects are expected to respect the individuals in power by
following the instructions whether they are younger or older (Oney-Yazıcı,
Giritli, Topcu-Oraz, & Acar, 2007).
For the Turkish system, the power is more of centralized with a system that being
characterized by hierarchical, dependent; the superiors are not accessible while
the ideal boss remains a father figure. The managers have a lot of reliance on the
bosses and the rules leaving the employees at a position of expecting to be told
what to do. The attitude of the subjects to the managers is more formal. The same
trend is observed in the simplest societal units like family, in the family, farther
are expected to be the patriarch and all are expected to submit to him.
5

c. Value Systems
We are comparing both Cambodia and Turkey value systems. In this case, a value
system is a set of values (coherent) which being adopted or evolved by a country
as their standard concerning their behavior in any circumstances (Business
Dictionary, 2017). The Cambodia is rooted in a deep respect for the ancestors,
family identity, the past and a huge desire for smooth and prestigious interaction
with other people. They have a high tolerance for ambiguity and are highly
willing to accept things the way they are. Turkey is a social nation that tends to
concentrate most of their energy on bonding; the festivals are respected as the
foundation of the activities like playing backgammon and others are the basis of
their uniqueness to other people.
d. Collectivism Vs. Individualism
It is the measurement of strength of ties of the people with others in the
community. A community with high level of collectivism score will have strong
group consistency and therefore, will exhibit the high level of respect and loyalty
among the members whereas under individualism the ties among the individuals
are loose and everyone is expected to take care of her or him or the immediate
family (Gholipour and Tajaddini 2014).
Cambodia falls under high collectivism society and therefore the group welfare is
valued higher as compared to the individuals. On the other hand, Turkey falls
under highly individualism society and the people are generally concerned about
themselves, their families and immediate families. In working place also the
employees are concerned about themselves and do not consult while taking any
decisions.
e. Feminity vs. Masculinity
It measures the level at which the culture values the traditional female and male
roles. Under the traditional male roles the virtues are competitive and assertive
and the traditional female role virtues are caring and modesty. A culture that has
high score for masculinity creates a gap among the men’s and women’s values
and a culture with low masculinity values the women (Hofstede 2014). Cambodia
falls under the predominant feminine culture and they place high value on the
people, nurturing and life quality. Meeting the basic requirements are sufficient to
fulfil their needs. On the other hand, Turkey falls under the border of feminine or
masculine culture. Boys don’t reveal their emotions and they don’t cry too,
however, they are supposed to protect their women. Their most important goal is
to earn money whereas the women are supposed to take care of their kids,
husband and families. With the changing time, the women are now getting
educated, earning money and stand by the all problems of the life (Minkov and
Hofstede 2014).
6

f. Communications
The Turkish information flow is indirect, and the flow is selective. The process
aims at improving the harmony of the people. Most of the information channeling
does not reach directly to the individuals but moves hierarchically from the top
authority trickling down.one of the main reason why it’s done in this manner is to
ensure the system remains intact and working. The system of communication
adopted in this system is common in most East Asian communities.
On the other side, the Cambodian communication style is based on the protocol
where the command has to come from the high orders. They too exhibit a more of
indirect communication for example when a Cambodian says that no or “no
problem” that would mean that there is a grave problem and if it’s in a
negotiation process one may miss what they have requested. The communication
systems in the Cambodian culture prefer a lot on the patience of the members
involved.
g. Decisions Making
Hofstede’s concept decision-making style is not same as the organizational and
management aspect. The decision making approach is useful means to understand
the managers, their problem solving approach and the decision making ability for
interacting with other people in the organization.
The culture of the country has an impact on the decision making process by the
managers or others to solve the problems (Upadhyaya, and Rittenburg 2015).
Cultural contingencies for decision-making process are as follows:
5 steps for Decision-
Making
Cultural variations
Problem Solving
Approach
Situation Acceptances
1. Recognition of
Problem
Situations shall be
changed
Few situations shall be
accepted instead of
changing
2. Search of
information
Gathering the facts Gathering the
possibilities and ideas
3. Alternative
construction
Future-oriented, new
alternatives can be
changed and learnt
Future-present-past
oriented alternatives
substantially cannot be
changed
4. Choice The responsibilities of
decision making are
delegated and decisions
are taken quickly
The senior managers
takes the decisions and
the decisions are taken
slowly
5. Implementation Process is slow as the
single person is
responsible for all the
responsibilities
Process is fast as it
involves participation
from all groups
7

Segregation of the styles of decision-making are made on the basis of democracy
and autocracy as opposite poles of same scale (Rienties and Tempelaar 2013). Six
alternatives under the decision making style are as follows:
Serial
No.
Type Definition for Decision-Making Style
1. Autocratic Generally, the person involved makes his own decision or
solve the problem using the information that is available
without consulting the subordinates
2. Consultative Generally, the persons consults the subordinates and then
take the major decision after analysing various
alternatives
3. Pseudo-
consultative
The person consults with the subordinates, however, it
does not mean that he considers their ideas while making
decision
4. Participative The person analyze and share the issues with the
subordinates under the group, analyse the alternatives and
then arrive at the major decision
5. Pseudo-
Participative
Normally the person analyze and share the issues with the
subordinates under the group, analyse the alternatives to
establish the right decision and inform the subordinates
regarding what he thinks to be right and then carries out
the process of decision vote.
6. Delegatory Generally, the subordinates are asked to take the decision
on their own.
The consumer’s decision-making style in Cambodia is involved with the mental
orientation strategy the consumer has towards the choice selection. The people in
Cambodia are of participative or delegator type as they falls under highly
collectivism and the manager does not make their own decision without
discussion it with their subordinates (Samaha, Beck and Palmatier 2014). Further,
in Cambodia the group welfare is valued higher as compared to the individuals.
Turkey falls under highly individualism society and the people are generally
concerned about themselves, their families and immediate families. In working
place also the employees are concerned about themselves and do not consult
while taking any decisions. Further, they make their decision based on the
autocratic type of communication and the person involved makes his own
decision or solve the problem using the information that is available without
consulting the subordinates (Putnam and Gartstein 2017).
In comparison with the case of Cambodia, the Cambodian style is seen to be
more decentralized compared to the Turkish system. Cambodia exhibits perfect
decentralization where commune councils of various areas are tasked with the pre
decision-making process. The councils give a skeleton of what the decision of the
central government should look like. The commune councils hold regular
meetings, and the decision is taken through a majority vote system before it’s
forwarded to the national level to be acted upon (Zhao, 2011).
8

h. Managing Team
Turkish system is one of the well-diversified systems in the world with an almost
equal score on both feminine and masculine scores. The system encourages
practices like sympathy, leveling with others and consensus. This culture helps
them in avoiding necessary conflicts in the public and private life, and there is
always an inclination to building the consensus at the end of every simple
conflict. They take a lot of importance on leisure time, and this means that
anybody managing teams in Turkey must schedule on providing the citizens with
their freedom to enjoy leisure time. This is time the family, clan, and friends
come together to get a quality life (Taras, & Kirkman, 2012)
The Cambodian workforce is one that tends to be extensively diversified and in
comparison to the Turkish system it’s more diversified. The Cambodian
government involves several expatriates from other parts of the world in most of
their appointments. Each that comes into their system enriches them with a
sample of their native cultural ideas, attitudes, experiences, and innovations that
have over time been incorporated well to form the Cambodian workplace culture.
The well-cultivated diversified work place culture has been a very big advantage
to Cambodian more so in the corporate sector.
i. How business negotiation is done
The Cambodian culture places emphasis on protocol during business
negotiations. These population likes people to appreciate their place within
negotiation. This means that they start slow during negotiations as they get
to the person they are negotiating with. This means that Cambodians
recognize patience in negotiations. Cambodians are non-confrontational and
do not like saying “no”, rather they say “no problem” to mean there is a
problem. On the other hand, Turkish people are homogenous with high
interaction levels (Katz, 2008). This makes them to expect things their way
in business negotiations. Distributive and contingency bargaining strategies
are used with tough negotiation skills to reach an agreement. Turks value
long term relationships and will seek to achieve win agreements rather than
end up with no deal. However, Katz (2008) suggests that this people are
strict Muslims and are not used to logical or argumentative reasoning in
business negotiation. Their bargaining is based on limited information
sharing since they believe information forms privileged information creates
bargaining advantages. This means that when negotiating, one should be
prepared to face a holistic approach that seeks to pursue multiple goals thus
the negotiation may be iterative unlike monochromic cultures in Germany or
United Kingdom. This makes the negotiation process to take longer than
expected.
9

III. CONCLUSION
As per the above discussion it is concluded that as far as the international
business is under consideration, the cultural dimensions plays an important role.
The manner, in which the different cultures are viewed, can assist the manager to
sail and understand the various concepts of international business. About the
cultural dimensions, Cambodia’s business market significantly varies with that of
Turkey. The people from Cambodia have high level of power distance as
compared to the Europeans, whereas the people from Turkey have low level of
power distance. Further, the Cambodian people have collectivist and feminist
culture. They prefer to take the decisions collectively and concerned about the
team members benefits. Further, they value their women as like the men. On the
other hand, turkey has individualism and masculinity culture. They are concerned
about themselves or their near and dear ones. Further, the women are supposed to
do the household works and take care of their babies, husbands and family
members. In Cambodia, important decisions are taken only after discussing the
points with subordinates whereas in Turkey decisions making are mainly to be
taken by a top-level management or the head of family.
IV.
10

REFERENCE
Bakir, A., Blodgett, J.G., Vitell, S.J. and Rose, G.M., 2015. A preliminary
investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions.
In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
Conference (pp. 226-232). Springer, Cham.
Culture Definition, 2017. Dictionary Website. [online] Available at:
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/culture>
[Accessed 28 July 2017]
Gholipour, H.F. and Tajaddini, R., 2014. Cultural dimensions and outbound
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, pp.203-205.
Hofstede, G., 2014. nd, Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions: Understanding
Workplace Values Around the World. Mind Tools Ltd, viewed, 5.
Hofstede, G., 2017. Cultural Dimensions: Country comparison.
Katz, L., 2008. Negotiating International Business.2nd ed. Booksurge
Publishing.
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.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2014. A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty
avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from
Europe. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), pp.161-171.
Oney-Yazıcı, E., Giritli, H., Topcu-Oraz, G., & Acar, E. (2007). Organizational
culture: the case of Turkish construction industry. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 14(6), 519-531.
Putnam, S.P. and Gartstein, M.A., 2017. Aggregate temperament scores from
multiple countries: Associations with aggregate personality traits, cultural dimensions,
and allelic frequency. Journal of Research in Personality, 67, pp.157-170.
Rienties, B. and Tempelaar, D., 2013. The role of cultural dimensions of
international and Dutch students on academic and social integration and academic
performance in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 37(2), pp.188-201.
Samaha, S.A., Beck, J.T. and Palmatier, R.W., 2014. The role of culture in
international relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), pp.78-98.
11

Selvarajah, C., Meyer, D., & Davuth, D. (2012). The Effect of Cultural
Modeling on Leadership Profiling of the Cambodian Manager. Asia pacific business
review, 18(4), 649-674.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural
indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede's dimensions. Journal of World
Business, 47(3), 329-341.
Upadhyaya, S. and Rittenburg, T.L., 2015, June. Cultural influences on
experiences of and responses to consumer vulnerability. In Annual Macromarketing
Conference (p. 59).
Value System Definition, 2017. Business Dictionary. [online] Available at
<http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value-system.html>
[Accessed 28 July 2017]
Zhao, F. (2011). Impact of national culture on e-government development: a
global study. Internet Research, 21(3), 362-380.
12