CHH Conex employs 107 people currently and is a leading provider of bespoke cable assemblies, innovative design, manufacturing, integrated products, logistics services and other related services to create value and minimise waste. CHH operates in telecoms, transport, medical, industrial, defence, aerospace and security markets.
The company is constantly evolving and changing and as a result the workplace has become more diverse that is why company need to maintain their diversified workforce to make an employee more engaged and need to develop one team spirit to achieve one common organisational goal.
1.1. Background of study
Managing a diverse workforce in the organisation is becoming more complicated day by day (Wollan et al, 2009).People differ widely in terms of nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, graphic profile or social background (Guirdham,2011). It will become more critical for the organisation with the passage of time to manage their diverse workforce and it will create the problem of communication. CHH enjoys diverse workforce with 12 different nationalities but at the same time it creates the problem of communication, cultural in-groups and low employee engagement and efficiency and this problem mainly seen in the Production department. People are setting in their cultural group during the break time as they share the same language and food divided them in cultural groups. According to Maude (2011) cultural generalisation affects the way of communication such as people who share a same racial or ethnic background, members of same culture often live in the same geographic region, share the same value system which may clash with the value system of other cultures and way of communicating with other people. All these factors or value system creates the problem of cross cultural communication at the work place which automatically led low morale and low employee engagement.
1.2. Aim and Objectives:
a) Aim of research
The main aim of the research is to investigate the problems of cross-cultural communication and engagement at CHH Conex and make recommendation for staff development to foster a 'one-team' spirit.
b) Objectives of research
To investigate management perceptions of the reasons for problems in cross-cultural communications and engagement.
To investigate staff perceptions of the reasons for problems in cross-cultural communications and engagement.
To analyse possible solutions to the problem in the research.
To recommend a staff development programme to foster a 'one team' spirit in the firm.
1.3. Rationale:
The subject of this business report is to investigate the cross cultural communication and engagement in manufacturing industry. There are ample researches are available on the topic of diversity and cross cultural communication but those studies are not specific for organisational workplace and very different from what happens in manufacturing organisation.
This report is helpful for the researcher to understand the significance of effective cross cultural communication and how it will be helpful to make employees more engaged in their job. Furthermore, this report could worth for managers to understand the perceptions of their employees and help to improve the interaction between employees of different cultures. Ultimately, by undertaking this research, researcher better understand the practices of human resource management in an organisation and will use this knowledge in near future.
1.4. Conclusion:
This chapter gives fair idea about how research will take place in CHH by providing the background of the study, give brief about CHH Conex and what current problems are exist related to cross cultural communication and employee engagement. The next chapter 'the literature review' narrated concentrating on the problem and building theoretical frameworks of this research.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The world's increasing globalization requires more interaction among people from diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds than ever before (Green et al, 2012). People no longer live and work in an insular marketplace; they are now part of a worldwide economy with competition coming from nearly every continent (Green et al, 2012). For this reason, organisation needs diversity to become more open to change, so that maximising and capitalising on workplace diversity has become important issue for management today (Green et al, 2012).
2.1. Diversity defined
According to Esty, et al (1995) diversity is acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and public assistance status (Green et al, 2012).
With increasing globalisation and emergence of the diversified work culture, communication at work is one of the more problematic consequences of diversity (Guirdham, 2011).
According to Williams & O'Reilly (1998 cited in Stahl et al, 2010) as per similarity attraction theory, people are attracted to working with and cooperating with those they find similar in terms of values, beliefs, and attitudes. Second, according to social identity and categorization theory (Tajfel, 1982 cited in Stahl et al, 2010), people tend to categorize themselves into specific groups, and categorize others as outsiders or part of other groups as well as people treat members of their own group with favouritism, and may judge ''others'' according to group traits (e.g., stereotyping). These two factors negatively affect in team work and as result, it creates cultural difference issue- in group, outgroup- which needs to be tackled so that the group is seen as the firm not smaller ethnic group within it.
Furthermore, differences in race, ethnicity, gender and cultural background can have major impact on employee engagement (Skalsky and McCarthy, 2009). The key potential driver of employee engagement is the manager's commitment to diversity (Skalsky and McCarthy, 2009). Successful manager who manage their diverse workforce effectively will reduce absenteeism, turnover and improve employee satisfaction; however, sometimes top managers do not have clear understanding of diversity management or benefits that it brings the individual employees and employee engagement as whole and lacking in developing team spirit (Skalsky and McCarthy, 2009). Furthermore, it will create the barriers of communication. Effective communication is associated with good team performance, both directly and by impacting on other processes such as conflict resolution and cohesiveness (Stahl et al, 2010). Different country-based cultures often have different languages, and even when they use a shared language they may not always translate the same way (Stahl et al, 2010). The different values and norms among people from different cultures make it difficult for them to find a shared platform or a common approach (Maznevski, 1994).
2.2. Culture Defined
According to Hofstede (2001, P.9) ''culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one culture from another.'' Culture directly influences the way in which people within the context communicate, and the way they perceive each other. Furthermore, Tayeb (2003, p.10) defined culture as ''historically evolved values, attitudes and meanings that are learned and shared by the members of a community and which influence their material and non-material way of life''. However, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997 cited in French 2010) argued that ''culture comprised not only agreed ways of living but also the ways in which cultural group attributes meaning to their world- i.e. they make sense of it.'' As a result, the environment in which organisation conduct and developed and cultural identity of one staff may not be applicable on the other culture. That is why culture is the complex concept to understand the various norms, beliefs and the communication pattern of different people.
2.3. Cross cultural communication
Cross cultural communication indicates the exchange of ideas, emotions and information by means of language, words and body language between people from different cultural background (Xu, 2007). This is important at workplace. Because workplace communication is essential for coordinating activities as well as it also leads to both understanding and misunderstanding and good and poor work relationship (Guirdham, 2011). Furthermore, cultures are differing from one another as it affect on communication as one cultural employees are more in contact with the same cultural employees.
2.4. How miscommunications affect organisational culture and employee engagement.
When people come from different cultural background and they interact with each other, the cultural origins, beliefs and attitudes of the participants are different, the problem of miscommunication arises because of their languages and non verbal behaviour which leads to misinterpretations and mutual misunderstanding (Maude, 2011). In fact, cross cultural contacts are harmful unless they are conducive to constructive communication, and this can only occur if the parties have respect and sympathy for each other and show a large measure of flexibility (Najafbagyis, 2008). Due to increasing diversity of workforce with language barriers, cultural nuances and value divergence unintended misunderstanding and low efficiency in internal communication is caused (Li, 2011). It leads to conflict amongst employees which adversely affect on employee engagement.
Furthermore, communication is often blocked by the deliberate cultivation of cultural prejudice. Cultural prejudice refers to the formation of opinion on certain members of the group grounded on the previous perception, attitude, and viewpoint of the group, heedless of the particular characteristic of the individual (Zhang and Xu, 2007). In cross-cultural communication, people often rely on their first impressions and assumptions, drawing on previous knowledge of the common features of a culture to make conclusions about an individual instead of analysing behaviours specifically (Li, 2011). In result, it creates negative relationship at workplace and if employees fear talking with co-workers who differ from themselves, particularly in terms of race and gender, then their ability to develop relationships at work will be thwarted (Deane and Stringer, 2009) and it becomes one of the biggest obstacle in team work which hinders future communication.
Ethnocentrism is one of the most obvious barrier in cross cultural communication as refers by Sumner (1906 cited in Maude, 2011) it is the habit that people have of using their own culture's value as the standard when viewing other groups. That is, they place their own group or society at the top of the hierarchy and rank all other groups or societies as inferior (Maude, 2011). This mentality of people makes them close minded and becomes intolerant when they interact with other people who belong from different cultural background. Due to the ethnocentrism, it seems that employee engagement is missing because diverse groups and employee engagement is neither will happen if employees are uncomfortable with or around each other nor will happen if organisation culture is not supportive of managers or employees talking time to develop trust and engage in courageous conversations (Deane and stringer, 2009).
One might argue that miscommunications in multicultural settings arise because of lack of fluency in the language that is being used (Riedel, 2008). Riedel and Karrasch (2002 cited in Riedel, 2008), studying communication in the NATO Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR), found that even speech mechanics can make communication difficult for non-native speakers i.e. speakers with English, the specified NATO language, as their second language.(Cited in Riedel, 2008). Speaking too fast or too softly, and using acronyms, slang, dialects, and even humour can makes communication harder for non-native speakers to understand (Riedel, 2008). In result, it will cause the risk of misinterpretation as people tend to be much less adept at accurately interpreting the non verbal behaviours of individuals who belongs to other ethnic, racial, and cultural groups (Maude, 2011). It will breakdown the communication channel in an organisation and divide all employees in cultural groups which adversely affect the performance level of employees as well as the productivity of overall organisation.
According to Harris et al (2003, p.30 cited in French, 2010) proposed that stereotyping occurs when 'cultural values which are known to be held by a group are projected onto an individual who is a member of the group'. Stereotypes tend to be crude and inaccurate and if it used in cross cultural communication they distort the communication and may damage relationships (Maude, 2011). Furthermore, stereotyped individuals generally feel under pressure to communicate and to behave in accordance with the stereotype and underperform in situation which reminds them that they are stereotyped to do poorly (Schmader, 2010 cited in Maude, 2011). It adversely affect in developing team spirit at workplace as employees who are perceived as different may become the target of prejudice and discrimination in the work place; they are often excluded from informal networks of co-workers, receive poor and inaccurate performance appraisals and suffer lack of constructive feedback from their supervisors (Maude, 2011).
2.5. Cultural Models and how they affect communication
Differences in cross cultural communication may cause difficulties and challenges for employees working in same organisation. To understand these differences and overcome the cross- cultural communication problems, numbers of cultural dimensions are developed by various experts.
Several contributions are devoted in cross-cultural area by some authors such as Hofstede (1997), Hall (1976, referred by Richardson and Smith, 2007), Globe (2004) (He and Liu, 2010). The most widely accepted of the dimensions were proposed by Hofstede (1980, 2001 cited in Riedel, 2008).
Power-distance
Power distance is determines how a community stratifies its individuals and groups with respect to power, authority, prestige, status, wealth and material possessions (Javidan and House, 2001 cited in Matveev and Nelson, 2004).
Low power distance cultures prefer consultation, participation, cooperation and practicality (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). In small power distance cultures, people feel more equal and employees expect to be consulted by their managers and communication in the workplace is often marked by high levels of informality (Maude, 2011). Superiors are dependent on subordinates as consultation on a limited extent, therefore the emotional distance between them is relatively small: it is quite easy and pleasant for subordinates to approach and contact their superiors (He and Liu, 2010).
While high power distance cultures prefer autocratic or majority rule decision-making and are reluctant to trust one another. Cultures that are high on power distance make the distinction between people with status and power and people without it (Maude, 2011).Managers tend not to communicate easily or on equal terms with employees and use autocratic management methods (Maude, 2011). Here employee engagement is relatively low compare to low power distance culture.
Individualism-collectivism
The individualism-collectivism orientation describes whether the culture values individual goals or group goals (Hofstede, 1980 cited in Matveev and Nelson, 2004). Individualists see themselves as independent, self-contained, autonomous and in this culture managers tend to take a tough and results- oriented approach (Maude, 2011). Furthermore, people of a certain culture are encouraged to integrate into-groups within organizations and society (Javidan and House, 2001 cited in Matveev and Nelson, 2004).By contrast, the collectivist cultures are characterised by tight social networks (Maude, 2011). In this organisation people of certain culture are encouraged to integrate into groups within an organisation (Javidan and House, 2001 cited in Matveev and Nelson, 2004). Culture that are collective exhibit more emotional dependence on the team, and are more conforming, orderly, traditional, team-oriented and particularistic (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). As result, in multi cultural organisation, people from different orientation creates challenges in achieving goals, one team development because of their different sense of responsibility.
Uncertainty-avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance indicates whether uncertainty and ambiguity are perceived as threatening within a culture (Hofstede, 1980 cited in Matveev and Nelson, 2004). In strong uncertainty avoidance, people dislike ambiguity and uncertainty and at workplace people feel fear of failure, take fewer risks , resist change, want job security, career planning and so on (Maude, 2011). High uncertainty avoidance cultures, people prefer consistency, structured lifestyles and clearly articulated expectations (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). However, Reducing uncertainty that is, developing `the ability to predict accurately how others will behave and the ability to explain the behaviour of others', is one of the critical factors for effective functioning of multicultural teams (Matveev and Nelson, 2004).
Masculinity-femininity
In "masculinity" society, people are more competitive, assertive, and ambitious (He and Liu, 2010). Moreover, accumulated wealth and material possessions are always valued (Usunier & Lee, 2005 cited in He and Liu, 2010).While in Feminine societies such as Scandinavian countries, stress concern for people, quality of life and sexual equality (Maude, 2011).
It is no exaggeration to say that Hofstede's dimension of national culture theory is a dominant theory (He and Liu, 2010). Although, the data of dimensions of national culture is not an absolute value but relative values; Additionally, Major criticism against Hofstede's study is that it neglects the change of time and data are out of time (Holden, 2002 cited in He and Liu, 2010). At least, Hofstede's dimensions of national culture theory still a famous and popular theory, which is engaged by a large number of researches. Hofstede's study is a comprehensive study and also appears to be more reliable and valid than any other study (Ambos & Schlegelmilch, 2008).
Other cultural model developed by Hall (1976) is most popular in cross cultural communication context. In this model, two concept high-context and low context culture are taken into consideration. According to Maude (2011) Hall's cultural dimensions are not based on empirical research but are nevertheless a useful heurism for explaining some of the problem that people from diverse cultural back grounds experience when they interact. However, Richardson and Smith (2007, p 480) refer to Hall (1976) and argue that cultures cannot be easily classified into HC or LC, but to some extent, "some cultures tend to be at the higher end while others are at the lower end of the continuum".
In high context culture, people independent on each other and information is widely shared through the word with potential meaning (He and Liu, 2010).By contrast in low context culture people do not assume that there is shared background and understanding and everything tend to explain in words (Maude, 2011).
High context communication tends to engage an indirect way to express while low context communication prefers direct information exchange. (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Furthermore, in a low-context culture, people coming from other culture can easily match these machinations, but in a high-context culture, these high-context machinations cannot be easily matched by people coming from low-context culture (Holden, 2002, p 28 cited in He and Liu, 2010).
Additionally, high- context communication tends to be relationship-centred so time must be spent building trust (Maude, 2011). People from low context cultures, on the other hand, may not be disposed to spend time on relationship (Maude, 2011). At this point people from low context culture are not interested in building relationship which creates communication gap and lack of team work. However Hall's work is scientific status of work in terms of obtaining the original data and some measure of over-generalisation in both his findings and consequent clusters: accepted personal space (French, 2010).
