I believe that companies need to seek the middle way, which will help to utilize the advantages of all the countries and minimize the tension inside the organization. Living by the dominant culture in the world of globalization appears impossible, as the organizations are managed differently in all parts of the world. It is clear that no universal management method exists that can fit all countries and communities (Dininni, 2010). However, without taking into consideration the peculiarities of local culture, it is impossible to be successful (Dininni, 2010). Verhoeven et al. (2009) described how the middle way was implemented in the European Management Model. This model acknowledged the similarities and differences in the cultures within the organization and defined the most appropriate values and practices that will enable all the employees.
Two broadly known theories help to shape global management theory. Hofstede’s approach acknowledges that there are six dimensions of culture, including power distance index, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance index, long- vs. short-term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint (Dininni, 2010). While this theory is criticized for making too many generalizations, it is a good starting point for developing a global management approach. The theory by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner expanded Hofstede’s theory, which helped to gain more insights on global management, as it included seven dimensions (Verhoeven et al., 2009). These two theories can help assess the organization’s culture and detect the possible problems to optimize the approach to organizational culture.
References
Dininni, J. (2010). Management theory of Geert Hofstede. Business.com. Web.
Verhoeven, H., Chansarkar, B., & Williams, S. (2009). Convergence, Divergence, or ‘A Middle Way? The influence of Culture on Internet Recruitment. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(1), 87-96.