An Analysis Of Culture And Organisation – ZTE Corporation Case Study

Introduction to ZTE and its environment

Discuss about the An Analysis of Culture and Organisation.

The report will discuss in detail about the company ZTE Corporation which is one of the largest and infect international leader in the field of telecommunication and IT. The company focuses on providing a system which is integrated by nature and also provide an end-to-end innovation to the customer (Zhu & Liu, 2010). The company serves many customers from different businesses to public sector customers from all across the world and also make sure that there is constant connectivity and also productivity in order to unlock the strength of the technology in the society (Zhu & Liu, 2010). The company got established in the year 1985 and the company is also listed at Hong Kong and Shenzhen Stock exchange. Not only this, the company is the largest listed telecommunication company in China (Fan, 2011). 

The company is providing variety of product which is extremely comprehensive by nature and provide end-to-end solutions. ZTE offers number of option from many value services, high quality wireless which is cutting edge, bearer and access, terminal and managed services to number of telecommunications carriers (Fan, 2011). Also the company is into providing structured ICT solutions for companies and number of government agencies. The company has a team of highly qualified people who have capacity to take the company on number one position in the field of telecommunication and also the company got listed in Fortune 500 enterprises among almost hundred and sixty countries to achieve business aim and also attain competitiveness constantly (Rogers & Ruppersberger, 2012). The company has also indulged in providing smartphones like AXON, SPRO and Blade. These mobile devices are highly demanded since the company come up with a lot of trust by the consumers all around the world.

ZTE is also an active part of UN global compact and the company is devoted to create a vision which is balanced in nature and provide sustainable development solutions for the environment and also economic fields (Rogers & Ruppersberger, 2012). The company also believes in providing freedom of speech all across the world and with the company being indulged in the innovation through technology and along with the concept of going green into effective product life cycle (Rogers & Ruppersberger, 2012). This includes research and development, logistics, production and customer service. The company is also devoted to provide high energy efficient solutions and at the same time also minimise carbon emission from the area.

The Hofstede theoretical framework

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory is actually a framework for those companies or people in general who migrate to different parts of the country and indulge in cross culture communication (Taras et al, 2010). The concept was developed by Geert Hofstede. It defines an effect on the culture of the society and the value system of the member of the society. This also discusses the value which is closely connected with the behaviour by using a proper structure and which also comes from many elements and its analysis (Taras et al, 2010).

The theory is entirely based on the basic idea that different values are places on 6 dimensions. These dimensions are power which throws light on equality and inequality in the society, individualism versus collectivism, avoidance of any kind of uncertainty which can also be compared uncertain level of tolerance, masculinity and femininity, indulgence and restraint and temporal orientation (Taras et al, 2010).   Following is the detailed discussion of all six dimensions:

1. Power-distance index: Hofstede has emphasized that power distance can be defined as an extent where in an organisation; people who are little less powerful can accept or even expect that power can be distributed unequally (Hofstede, 2010). Here, the level of distribution of power is not calculated rather the focus is more on the way people actually feel about the whole situation. In fact, the low power-distance score actually means that cultures has the power to expect or accept different power relations and is more democratic by nature and where members are actually viewed as equals (Hofstede, 2010). High power-distance scores emphasize on the less powerful people in the society who can easily accept the place and can also realise the level of existence in a more formal and hierarchical positions (Hofstede, 2010).

2. Individualism and collectivism: this element discusses the degree to which an individual can be integrated in a group and the main dimension does not have any political connotation and it is also related to the group instead of any individual (Hofstede, 2011). Culture that promotes individualistic approach gives importance on attaining personal goals. In collective societies, these goals or objective are the group of people and its wellbeing which are valued over those of many individuals (Hofstede, 2011).

3. Uncertainty versus avoidance: tolerance level in a society can be uncertain and also create an ambiguous situation. This is actually a dimension that can measure the way any society can deal with many unknown situations and can also face many unexpected events and the level of stress also changes (Yoo et al, 2011). When culture score high on this index are very less tolerant of any kind of change and also tend to minimise the level of anxiety or worry in the unknown place by implementing various rigid rules, laws and regulations(Yoo et al, 2011). Societies that actually score comparatively low on any index are more open to different kind of change and also have less rules and laws and more free or flexible guidelines.

Importance of Hofstede theoretical framework

4. Masculinity versus Femininity: – this element focuses on the distribution of many emotional roles which exist between the genders. This dimension calculate the level of importance in a culture that places on many stereotypical value which are masculine by nature like assertiveness or power or materialism and also typical feminine values like value to human relationships (Yoo et al, 2011). Cultures that are high in masculinity scale are generally based on having more distinct differences in the genders and also tend to be very competitive and ambitious by nature. When these score is low on many dimensions have less differences between the gender and overall place gives higher values on building the relationship (Yoo et al, 2011).

5. Long term orientation versus short term orientation: there are number dimension that can explain a society’s time and its horizon. Short-term oriented culture focuses on traditional or more conventional values or methods that give a lot of time to build relationships and in common have a view as circular (Taras et al, 2012). In other words, the past or the present are more interconnected by nature and also it cannot be executed today or many can be done in the future. The complete opposite of this is long term orientation which has the capability to see the time as a more linear and it also look for the future rather than the present or even the past. It is more goal oriented and value rewarding by nature (Taras et al, 2012).

6. Indulgence versus restraint: this element calculates an ability of the culture that has the capacity to satisfy the constant needs and also the personal ambitions for its members (Taras et al, 2012). Those values can also restraint and have a very strict or rigid society rules and conditions which can satisfy or even drives in a more regulated or discouraged manner.

There are number of issues that are measured based on Hofstede dimensions which are discussed in detail as follows:

1. The society is from a time or a culture that shows high power distance dimension and at the same time, subordinates or employees are used to abide by what the managers tells them to do instead of focussing more open or democratic methods (Hofstede et al, 2010). On the other hand, the engineer or other technical people come from a culture where the dimension is low and it will also flatter many kind of power structure and it also includes the authority and accountability of employees so that they can work on more equal terms (Hofstede et al, 2010).

2. The overall community is actually collective driven on the other hand, the engineers belongs to a more individualistic culture (Woodside et al, 2011). This is why; the community actually gave importance to a group that have opinions despite the fact that these are more personal opinions. This is why, when an individual is walking through number of problems was asked to voice his or her opinion and when the person takes a step back when it comes to expressing the opinion, since many members of the community or society have nothing to do with that individual problem (Woodside et al, 2011).

3. The levels of low uncertainty actually avoids and also have a high power distance focuses on many community rules, the members are focused on organising as a part of the family where the chief or head take responsibility (Engelen & Brettel, 2011). The primary focus is with the head of the family or organisation who must take decision on the right action plan.

4. Whereas, when a technical sound person comes under a situation where power distance as well as uncertainty avoidance is comparatively low, the project is actually drawn till the end and the engineer is more focused to collect in many members of the society though the head or the chief has less or not interested (Pauwels, 2012).

This framework is proposed by Edger Schein and he stated that it takes time to adopt a culture and it cannot be done in a single day, rather it is formed in due course of time as employees have to face many changes and also adapt to the external environment and solve issues (Rai, 2011). People gain from their past experiences and also practice it daily. This leads to forming a culture in a workplace. New employees look hard to adjust in the new place and lead a stress-free time (Rai, 2011). Following are the three level of organisation culture according to this framework:

1. Artefacts: this level is the characteristic of any organisation that can be easily viewed or heard or even felt by number of people in a collective manner and known as artefacts (Hogan & Coote, 2014). In this level everything from dress code of employees to office furniture to overall code of conduct of the employees and mission, vision come under Artefacts (Hogan & Coote, 2014).

2. Values: in this level Schein focused on organisation culture and its value to the workforce. The values of a single individual working in the organisation actually play an important role in deciding the organisational culture (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 2016). The overall mind-set of any person who is connected with a particular firm impacted the culture of that workplace (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 2016).

3. Assumed Values: the last level focus on many values of the employees which cannot be measured but does have the power to make the difference in the culture of the organisation (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 2016).

There are many types of theories in cultural and organisational models; however Hofstede framework for culture is an effective one because it is one of the most referred and used theories all across the world. The major difference between Hofstede and Schein cultural framework is that Hofstede look for major differences on international platforms all across the employees in a multinational companies and this is an effort to deicide the features for attainting the international culture in the working environment. Globalisation is an important element of today’s time and this is why this theory has become even more crucial for organisational culture.

Managers all across the world are constantly facing number of difficulties and challenges which are thrown in a way that global interdependence of the market and HR department cannot be exempted (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2011). When in a company like ZTE has common culture, personnel management is challenging because everyone faces some or other common conception of right or wrong or accepted attitude or behaviour. At the same time, when various team members come from a different kind of cultural background or have background where manager or a team have different outlook, there can be a situation that lead to many misunderstanding which is not good for the organisation (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2011). Following is the importance of culture and its connection with Hofstede framework of culture is discussed in detail:

1. Recruitment: the complete definition of an effective candidate is completely different from the culture that prevails. Those candidates who have a strong outlook on thing and are outspoken are actually considered potential candidates for the company. These individuals are part of masculine societies (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010).

2. Now a day, where collectivist feminine is given importance, there people who are fumble and perfectly connected participants or candidates and are good ones (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). Positioning as a manager in the country like USA which is masculinity rate is high, is actually very different from doing so in more countries near Scandinavian where masculinity is quite low.

3. Appraisal: many processes in appraisal or promotion are actually based in countries like USA or other developing countries like UK and these countries are high rate of individualism as well as also have power distance which is low (Migliore, 2011). Therefore, according to many countries, the right way of performing is enhancing the direct and more frank feedback. At the same time, this does not focus on considerations like those countries with high power distance or have collective culture. This comes from a culture where feedback is not appreciated (Migliore, 2011).  

According to Hofstede framework for culture, it can be concluded the cultural differences are seen very important towards the way any consumer can classify and test the product or services (Migliore, 2011). ZTE is a telecommunication company therefore according to the framework more importance is given to the power distance and individualism dimension which are crucial to be considered. As per the Hofstede, these cultures can be recognised as the interesting variables (Migliore, 2011). Many studies have proved that there is string negative connection between the power distance and individualism.  However, both the dimensions are adopted by many researchers.

Conclusion

According to individualisms and collectivism, one can understand the high degree of individualism with a belief that values are independent and also achieve self-actualisation stage (Alkailani et al, 2012). In addition, the research also focuses on the customer adaptation and its acceptance of different forms of advertising like SMS through mobile phone and it has been found that consumer in an individualistic culture are based on individual considerations.  At the same time, the overall intention of the collectivist consumer is directly impacted by social norms and many attitudinal factors (Alkailani et al, 2012). According to this framework, a model can actually by hypothesized in connection to the effect on consumer and his or her behaviour. This is why; it is possible that ZTE apply this model to investigate the purchasing behaviour of the mobile phone and other services (Alkailani et al, 2012). Telecommunication services can be looked as the most influential decision in terms of purchasing attitude. This is why, Hofstede dimension must be considered very useful and also valuable tool for evaluating the purchasing pattern in the present market (Alkailani et al, 2012).

Reference

Alkailani, M., Azzam, I. A., & Athamneh, A. B. (2012). Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: ungeneralized, reevaluating the Jordanian culture. International Business Research, 5(4), 71.

Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (2016). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. In Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 2 (pp. 169-190). Springer International Publishing.

De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 85-110.

De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review of research findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,23(3-4), 181-192.

Engelen, A., & Brettel, M. (2011). Assessing cross-cultural marketing theory and research. Journal of Business Research, 64(5), 516-523.

Fan, P. (2011). Innovation, globalization, and catch-up of latecomers: Cases of Chinese telecom firms. Environment and Planning A, 43(4), 830-849.

Hofstede, G. (2010). Geert hofstede. National cultural dimensions.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.

Hofstede, G., de Hilal, A. V. G., Malvezzi, S., Tanure, B., & Vinken, H. (2010). Comparing regional cultures within a country: Lessons from Brazil.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 336-352.

Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.

Migliore, L. A. (2011). Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Samples from the USA and India. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 38-54.

Pauwels, L. (2012). A multimodal framework for analyzing websites as cultural expressions. Journal of Computerâ€ÂMediated Communication, 17(3), 247-265.

Rai, R. K. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 779-801.

Rogers, M., & Ruppersberger, C. D. (2012). Investigative report on the US national security issues posed by Chinese telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE: A report. US House of Representatives.

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: a three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405.

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.

Woodside, A. G., Hsu, S. Y., & Marshall, R. (2011). General theory of cultures’ consequences on international tourism behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 785-799.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.

Zhu, Q., & Liu, Q. (2010). Eco-design planning in a Chinese telecommunication network company: Benchmarking its parent company.Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(3), 363-377.