Business Culture: A Case Analysis of the United Kingdom and India

Part 2: Theory and Framework Critical Review

Schneider and Barsoux (1997) have defined cultural diversity as the representation in a single social system of persons with manifestly separate group attachments that are significant culturally. Research from field settings, guided by theories based on social identity and self-categorization has proposed that multiculturalism is linked with adverse outcomes in performance (Lahdesmaki, 2011). Alternatively, laboratory experiments from the standpoint of value in diversity have suggested that multiculturalism in work groups improves their efficiency (Kauff et al., 2013; Heath and Demireva, 2014). In the assessment carried out in the previous cultural analysis, the Social Identity theory and the Institutional Theory of Diversity Management have been essential in determining the extent to which cultural diversities from the perspective of China and UAE impact working in the United Kingdom.

Based on the Social Identity

Theory, cultural homogeneity in leadership groups can, therefore, improve the cooperation and satisfaction levels and decrease the emotional clashes (Hogg, 2016). Positive Social interactions in homogenous groups are fostered due to the absence of noticeable cultural barriers (Card, Heining, and Kline, 2013). Nevertheless, the postulates of this framework do not ascertain the difficulty associated with the achievement of homogeneous leadership in organizations. The structure and strategy of an organization have a significant influence on the leadership orientations. On the other hand, according to the Institutional Theory of Diversity Management, employee behaviours also determine the type of administrative structures. For that reason, when heterogeneity stretches to moderate levels in management groups, the psychological processes allied to social identity theory and self-categorization processes begin to develop (Yang and Konrad, 2011). A critical analysis of this theory reveals some notable drawbacks. Although the tendencies defined in the framework of the theory breed individual conducts like solidarity with others in a group based on gender or race, cases of employee adaptation to a system are dynamic and subject to internal and external factors in the corporate sector and work-life balance (Cikara et al., 2011). Such an argument emanates on the complexity and multidimensional nature of cultural diversity and management in the corporate sector (Schneider and Barsoux, 1997).

Worth pointing out is that the use of the postulates in these two theories was essential in drawing key arguments and perspectives regarding how the process of incorporating employees from China and UAE in the UKs workforce is associated with new shifts. The need for a stable human resource environment that can encourage profitability for the organization and a favourable environment for employee interaction, development, and satisfaction is not only anchored in establishing homogeneity but also in accepting diversities. In organizations with multiple subcultures, conflicts are exploited (Butler et al., 2012), even to the extent that communication and interaction within the groups are hindered (Park and Shaw, 2013). In fact, scholars have ascertained that the pressures within the group that impede social interaction with other team members are weakened (Card, Heining, and Kline, 2013).

Furthermore, the legal framework associated with the management of employees and the organizational process provide the basis for a balanced consideration of the needs of the two parties. Although the objective of generating profit remains one of the key targets in business, legal frameworks provide protective operational standards. A similar picture is portrayed when dealing with employees where the laws facilitate the development of homogeneity in workplaces for the incorporation of diversities (Butler et al., 2012).

References

Butler, C.L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., and Sutton, C., 2012. The global leader in boundary spanner, bridge maker, and blender. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), pp.240-243. Retrieved on 21 September 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Audra_Mockaitis/publication/260640088_The_Global_Leader_as_Boundary_Spanner_Bridge_Maker_and_Blender/links/0c960531e82c7551ac000000.pdf

Card, D., Heining, J. and Kline, P., 2013. Workplace heterogeneity and the rise of West German wage inequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(3), pp.967-1015.

Cikara, M., Botvinick, M.M. and Fiske, S.T., 2011. Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological science, 22(3), pp.306-313. Retrieved on 21 September 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833634/

Heath, A. and Demireva, N., 2014. Has multiculturalism failed in Britain?. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(1), pp.161-180.

Hogg, M.A., 2016. Social identity theory. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory (pp. 3-17). Springer International Publishing.

Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Thorner, S. and Wagner, U., 2013. Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), pp.305-320.

Lahdesmaki, T., 2011. European Capitals of Culture as cultural meeting placesstrategies of representing cultural diversity. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift, 13(01), pp.27-43.

Luthans, F., Luthans, B.C. and Luthans, K.W., 2015. Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. IAP.

Park, T.Y. and Shaw, J.D., 2013. Turnover rates and organizational performance: a meta-analysis. Retrieved on 21 September 2017. https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16253916/473118207/name/park2013.pdf

Schneider S., C and Barsoux J., 1997. Managing across-cultures. 2nd Ed. London: Prentice Hall.

Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M., 2011. Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), pp.6-38.