View source for Challenges in cross-cultural project management

'''Introduction'''

In the globalized world we see today, there is a bigger need for managers to be able to recognise, understand, and manage different cultures.
This can both be when doing projects within an organization across different countries and when working with local contractors, partners and suppliers.
The scope of this article is to highlight some of the areas that can cause problems and why they occur by using Hofstede's cultural dimensions.

It is not an easy task to manage a project team. There is no "one fit all method" and every project can give new challenges that the leader have never experienced before. 
Even though there are some attributes that are seen as generally good for a project manager like honesty, positivity and being a good communicator, there are also some that in some cultures are seen as good but in others seen as bad. 
A project group will consist of different individuals, which will also have an impact on how the group works, but the scope of this article will not be on that but on a cultural level instead.



== The Tool == 

Hoffstede’s culturel dimension framework is the product of a research made by Geert Hofstede, a Dutch psychologist. It is based on data collected at IBM between 1967 to 1973, where more than 100,000 employees, from across 70 countries were asked about individuals values  and attitudes. It consisted of 4 dimensions, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, indiviualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity. First only the 40 countries with must respondents were used but later 10 extra countries where added together with to extra dimensions Long term orientation versus short term normative orientation and 
Indulgence versus restraint.   



=== Power distance === 
Is about how willing a culture is to accept inequality in physical and intellectual capabilities. This is very often show in how much power and wealth are “allowed” in the culture. In a company or a project group this can be seen by the ability for employees lower in the title hierarchy to get in direct contact with superiors, question their decisions and come with suggestions to how things could work better. The higher the number the higher allowance in power distance for the culture. Countries that have a high power distance includes most South american countries, middle eastern and asian countries and low scoring countries are the northern part of europe especially scandinavia.
       

===Uncertainty avoidance=== 
As the name suggest how much a culture want to avoid uncertainty. Cultures that have a high uncertainty avoidance appreciate high job security, clear career patterns and a high level of rules and regulations. The manager is to give clear instructions, and there is a high avoidance to take risks. Also the resistance towards changes are getting higher as the uncertainty avoidance score raises. Examples of high scoring countries are southern europe, the middle east and South america, whereas the low scoring countries are Scandinavian, UK and some of the former british colonies.    


===Individualism versus collectivism===
Individualism and collectivism is about to what degree individuals of a culture is to take care of themselves and their closest relatives. Cultures with a high Individualism score is also rating individual achievement and freedom very high. The “american dream” or the thoughts behind the american system is a good example of a culture that scores high in individualism, with the equal rights, and that everyone is free to do what they want. On the other side, you have a country as China which have a low individualism score which means that collectivism is high. The reason for that is probably to be found in the communist system that have had a big influence on the modern chinese culture. Here the wellbeing of the whole culture is more important than individual achievement or freedom. There is a strong loyalty towards the group that you are a part of in low scoring cultures, and that also means that it can be harder for and outsider to manage people from these cultures, since so much is build on trust and loyalty.    


===Masculinity versus femininity===
The masculinity score is about how the culture look at gender and work roles. If a country have a high masculinity score the sex roles are traditional and there is a clear distinction between “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”. There is a high preference for material rewards and pursuit of achievements, which influence the competitiveness in the culture. On the other side in the low scoring masculinity (or femininity) where more emphasis is put on a general cooperation and the gender roles are not as sharply defined.


===Long term orientation versus short term normative orientation===
Cultures that scoring high on this dimension is has a more long term approach to the world. This means that they plan long ahead, put a lot of efforts in modern education and in general are planning more on the future than on short term goals. These countries are also better to adapt traditions when the conditions in the culture change. Cultures that scores low is more bound by tradition and norms which influence that there is a focus on achieving quick goals.   

===Indulgence versus restraint===
If a culture scores high in indulgence it means that the culture have a relatively high acceptance of satisfaction of basic and natural human pleasures related to enjoying life and having fun. Cultures that scores low on this is regulated by social norms that regulates this. 


== Comparison of cultures ==
For the comparison between cultures it has decided to look at Denmark, United States and China. The reason for this is the differences there is between these 3 countries, but also because both United States and China are big markets so there is a good possibility that a danish project manager at some point would end up working with either or both cultures. 
[[file:Compare.png|right|100px|caption]] 


==Limitations of the tool==
The research is more a tool for business culture than a direct project management tool, and it has been criticised for for not differentiating between culture and country even though a country can consists of multiple cultures. The research is based upon data from a single company, and although it was a large multinational company there will still be some similarities across the company since people have the same positions around the world. Lastly it has been criticised to maybe be a bit biased since all of the research group was either european or american and the results correlates well with a “western” view on cultures.
That being said it can still be good for a project manager that have to manage a cross-cultural project group especially if it consist of people from countries with high difference in scores for the different parameters, or if the manager is to manage a group of from the same country, but one that differ a lot from the manager's own country.

==Conclusion==
An example could be a manager coming from a low uncertainty avoidance country that had to manage a project where most of the project group had a high level of uncertainty avoidance. The manager is willing to take some risks every now and then there is a good part of how to do certain things to allow the rest of the project group to be more creative to encourage a more co-development style in running the project. 
This can be the project group be seen as the manager is not good enough suited to be manager and therefore either don’t do anything because they are afraid to do something wrong since the guidelines are not precise enough or to start being counter productive since as they don’t find the manager suitable they have to manage themselves