Comparative Analysis of Cultural Differences: England and India

This report offers a detailed analysis of the cultural differences between England and India by applying Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory and the Globe Framework. It examines key aspects such as power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, indulgence vs. restraint, institutional collectivism, gender egalitarianism, performance orientation, and humane orientation. The report highlights how these cultural dimensions impact management practices and social behaviors in both countries. By comparing these elements, the report provides insights into the complexities of cross-cultural interactions and the implications for international management. It concludes with a synthesis of findings to enhance understanding of cultural dynamics in England and India.

Running head: CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Cross Cultural Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Executive Summary
In this report the cultural differences between England and India will be explained. The
framework of the Hofstede and the Globe will help in the analysis of the cultural development of
these two countries. A graph of the Hofstede model has been attached that will further help in
one’s understanding the concept.
Table of Content

2CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
s
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Indian culture...................................................................................................................................3
Culture of England...........................................................................................................................3
Cultural differences.........................................................................................................................4
Hofstede framework....................................................................................................................4
Globe framework.........................................................................................................................7
References......................................................................................................................................11

3CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The cross cultural management involves managing the different teams so that the
differences in their preferences, culture and practices in the context of the international business
market. In this report, the cross cultural differences between India and England will be
elaborately explained. The challenges need to be identified based on the frameworks of the cross
culturalism and based on it the recommendations need to be developed. The key factors that
influences the business in both the countries will be explained with the help of the Hofstede
framework.
Indian culture
The Indian culture is an amalgamation of the different cultures that expands across India
and has shaped a history that is almost several thousand years old. It is quite evident from the
history that the Indian culture has been influenced by the different Dharmic religions. The
culture highly identifies the lives of the people and is entailed on how they dress, speak, their
food habits and almost every manner they live with. The cultures have been originated from
ancient India and that includes their texts and scriptures. The culture of India is varied and
unique and consists of the different informational aspects.
Culture of England
The culture of England is often termed as the idiosyncratic cultural norms towards
England and their people. The influential position of England within United Kingdom is very
difficult to be differentiated from the culture of United Kingdom. Its culture has been influenced
by the history of UK and its development with the island countries that has the liberal democracy

4CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
as its major power. It is mostly from the composition of the countries like the Scotland, wales,
England and the Northern Island that has their distinct cultures and customs (Viswanathan 2014).
Cultural differences
In order to explore the differences in culture between England and India the use of the
Hofstede model and the GLOBE framework has been used.
Hofstede framework
Power Distance
This dimension deals with the fact that not all individuals in the society are equal and
possess the same attitude towards their cultural world. This is considered as the extension that
has less members in the organizations and their institutions that is expected and accepted within
the country. In India the score is high that is 77 on this dimension and thus indicates that the
hierarchy is appreciated. The attitude of the Indians is to be dependent on the power holders,
accepting their unequal rights between the privileged and the lesser ones. Control is accepted in
their Indian society as the psychological security and the communication is directive and has a
top down style. England ranks 35 in comparison to India and it has a lower ranking in the PDI
system that has made the society believe that the inequalities can easily be minimized easily.
Through research it can be shown that the PD index is lower than the high class Britain that is
amongst the working classes. The PDI score is seemed to be incongruent with the historical and
the well-established class systems that exposes one of the inherent tensions in the British culture.
A sense of fair play drives a belief that all the people should be treated in an equal way.
Individualism

5CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
This is the dimension that deals with the degree of the interdependence that can be
maintained amongst the members of the society. In an individualistic society people have a
tendency to look after themselves only whereas in a collective society, people change their views
and take care of each other. The score is 89 for England that has the highest Individualist scores
that can only be beaten by Australia or the US (Simpson and Yinger 2013). It cannot be denied
that the people in England are extremely private and individualistic and the route to happiness is
through personal fulfillment. The score of India is 48 that deals with the individualistic and the
collectivist traits in the society. The dominant philosophy is Hinduism in the Indian society. The
Hindus believe in the concept of rebirth and death that is dependent on the individuals that has
lived a preceding life. In India, the focus is primarily on the individualism that interacts with the
collectivist tendencies in the society, that leads to an intermediate score on the dimensions.
Masculinity
A high score in this dimension shows that the society is driven by success, achievement
and through competition that can add a value in their school and hence is continued throughout
their organizational life. The low score in feminine dimension shows that the dominant value lies
for care and quality of life in the society. The fundamental issue that needs to be highlighted is
motivating people, wanting to be their best (Masculine) and liking to do what one usually wants
(Feminine). In Britain the score is 66 that has been highly driven and success oriented. A point
of contradiction only arises when the understatement and the modesty that acts as the odds
arising due to the culture and the value system. In India, the score of this dimension is 56 and
hence is considered as the Masculine society. In India, this is quite prominent in terms of the
power and success on the visual displays and the designer brand has a label, ostentation and
flash.

6CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Uncertainty Avoidance
This is one of the major dimension that has to do with the dealings in the society with the
fact that the future can never be known and controlled (Spring 2016). The extent to which the
members in the society are threatened by the unknown or the ambiguous situation and has
created institution and beliefs that has to be avoided. In this dimension, the score of India is 40
and can be considered as having a medium low preference in this section. Only in India the
imperfection can be accepted that has nothing to do with planning and as long as one can adjust
nothing can be called impossible.
Indulgence
This is that dimension that is considered as an extent to which almost all the people can
try to control their impulses and their desires. The rank of India in this section is 26, that means
that the culture is of restraint. The society has a low score in the dimension that has a tendency to
pessimism and cynicism. The high score of England in this section indicates that the
Low term orientation
This is considered as that dimension in the society that maintains some of the links that
has their own past when dealing with the challenges of the future and present (Rampton 2014).
The score of India in this section is 51, that has a dominant preference in the culture that cannot
be determined (Samovar et al. 2015). The concept of Karma in India is dominated by the
philosophical and the religious thoughts. The society is often high on pragmatism that often
forgets the lack of the punctuality. The intermediate score of England in this dimension is 51,
that maintains a dominant preference in their culture. The people in the society often portray a

7CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
high score while indulging and exhibiting the willingness so that the desires and the impulses can
be realized. Usually they portray a positive attitude and optimistic attitude (Pieterse 2015).
Fig 1: Differences using the Hofstede framework
(Source: Pennycook 2017 )
Globe framework
The Globe is an extended research program of Hofstede that can be done by investigating
the cross cultural behaviors in leadership so that it might help the manager.
Power distance
This is considered as the degree when the members of the society expect the power to be
shared unequally. It cannot be denied that England possess much more power than India. Their
society is usually differentiated into the class sections and the power is seen to be the one

8CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
providing in the social order. In India the middle class is throughout a large section and the
power in the politics is unlike England which is related to corruption and coercion (Moran,
Abramson and Moran 2014).
Uncertainty avoidance
This revolves around the support that is gained from the society on the procedures and
the social norms that needs to be alleviated in the impulsion of some of the unfavorable events in
the future (Klitmøller and Lauring 2013 ). The Indians are seen to take up careful and moderate
calculated risks and often maintains a level of formality in their interactions. In England there is
often a concept that is still prevailing which is the informality in interactions. There is often a
concept to keep few records in an orderly way and that is maintained in England.
Assertiveness
This deals with the people in the society to become tough, kind and modest. The high
assertiveness in the society is viewed in England that has a high value in success, competition
and progress. They often communicate clearly and directly unlike the society of India. India
possess a low assertiveness that includes the value cooperation and also does indirect
communication.
Human orientation
This consists of the society that needs to be encouraged and rewarded for being caring,
generous and fair to the rest of the people. India has a high humane orientation that limits the use
of the child labor by the support of the public. In most of the cases the society is responsible for
promoting the wellbeing of others and are often interested on others rather on themselves. In

9CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
England the self interest is much important and the state government provides economic support
to the individuals so that they can maintain a well being (Guo and Reinecke 2014).
Future orientation
This is all about encouraging the people and the society that has a future oriented
behavior. The orientation is high in India as they emphasize on working for a long term success
and the organizations in this environment often is adaptive and flexible. People in England often
prefer to be gratified as soon as possible and the organizations also tends to be inflexible
(Dittmar et al. 2014).
Institutional collectivism
This means that the individuals should be integrated in groups that is within the society
and the organizations. The high individualism is shown in India where the members presume that
they are highly interdependent in the organization and they also encourage the loyalty in their
group that is undermined by the pursuits of one’s individual goals.
Gender difference
The context is all about how the society maximizes the roles of the gender. It is tough to
state this in comparison with India and England as both has more or less women employees in
the authority and they consist of similar levels of educational attainment (Deresky 2017). In case
of low gender differences, the occupational sex segregation is more.
Group collectivism
This is of taking pride in the memberships so that the family and their friends can make a
circle of close groups (Banks 2015). In England the obligations and the duties are considered an

10CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
important determinant in the context of the social behavior. The people often tries to relate and
emphasize with the groups.
Performance orientation
This revolves around rewarding and encouraging people so that they can maintain
excellence and a high performance rate. In England the rate is of high performance that values
the development and the training and often waits for the formal feedbacks so that their
performance can be enhanced. In India, the people often value family and societal relationships
and tries to maintain a harmony with the environment (Almond and Verba 2015).
Conclusion
From this report a complete apprehension about the cultural differences between England
and India has been explained. With the help of the Globe and the Hofstede framework, a
complete analysis of the cultural differences between the two countries has been explained.

11CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
References
Almond, G.A. and Verba, S., 2015. The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five
nations. Princeton university press.
Banks, J.A., 2015. Cultural diversity and education. Routledge.
Deresky, H., 2017. International management: Managing across borders and cultures. Pearson
Education India.
Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M. and Kasser, T., 2014. The relationship between materialism and
personal well-being: A meta-analysis.
Guo, P.J. and Reinecke, K., 2014, March. Demographic differences in how students navigate
through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale
conference (pp. 21-30). ACM.
Guo, P.J. and Reinecke, K., 2014, March. Demographic differences in how students navigate
through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale
conference (pp. 21-30). ACM.
Klitmøller, A. and Lauring, J., 2013. When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media
richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3),
pp.398-406.
Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R. and Moran, S.V., 2014. Managing cultural differences. Routledge.
Pennycook, A., 2017. The cultural politics of English as an international language. Taylor &
Francis.

12CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Pieterse, J.N., 2015. Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield.
Rampton, B., 2014. Crossings: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Routledge.
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., McDaniel, E.R. and Roy, C.S., 2015. Communication between
cultures. Nelson Education.
Simpson, G.E. and Yinger, J.M., 2013. Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis of prejudice
and discrimination. Springer Science & Business Media.
Spring, J., 2016. Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Viswanathan, G., 2014. Masks of conquest: Literary study and British rule in India. Columbia
University Press.
Vitkus, D., 2016. Turning Turk: English theater and the multicultural Mediterranean. Springer.