Business Essay写作范文-认识企业文化的重要性。本文是一篇留学生Business Essay格式范文，主要内容是讲述在日益增长的社会化和技术时代，全球化不容忽视。有必要穿上你的跑鞋，参加全球商业竞赛。今天的经济越来越受到不断上升的全球化的影响。由于市场的国际化，企业面临着更激烈的竞争、不断上升的成本压力以及在跨国一级调整业务流程的必要性。基于这些原因，Business Essay提出可以观察到越来越多的跨国并购。文化规范在工作中的人际关系中起着重要作用。当你在特定的文化中成长时，你会认为社会的行为规范是理所当然的，你不必考虑自己的反应、偏好和感受，只要你不太偏离社会的中心趋势。然而，当你进入一个外国文化时，事情突然变得不同，你不想引起冒犯。通过使用霍夫斯泰德的文化维度作为起点，您可以根据特定社会中的人们可能如何思考和反应的总体感觉来评估您的方法、决策和行动。当然，每个人都是独一无二的，没有一个社会是统一的，但你可以使用这个模型来减少未知的人的威胁，避免犯错误，并在你在一个陌生的国家工作时提供急需的信心提升。下面就一起来参考这篇Business Essay写作范文的全部内容。
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
WHAT IS CULTURE?
WHY DOES CULTURE MATTER?
HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
LIMITATIONS OF HOFSTEDE’S SURVEY
SECTION 2
FAILURE OF DAIMLER CHRYSLER MERGER
BACKGROUND OF THE MERGER
THE CLASH OF NATIONAL CULTURE
THE CLASH OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION 引言
In the growing age of socialization and technology, globalisation cannot be ignored. It is necessary to put on your running shoes and participate in the race of global business. Today’s economy becomes more and more affected by the continuously rising globalization. (MITTERMAIR; KNOUREK, 2006). Due to the internationalization of the markets, businesses face fiercer competition, rising cost pressures and the necessity to adapt business processes at a multinational level. On these grounds, more and more cross-border Mergers & Acquisitions (M&As) can be observed. Cultural norms play a large part in interpersonal relationships at work. When you grow up in a certain culture, you take the behavioural norms of your society for granted, and you don’t have to think about your reactions, preferences and feelings, provided that you don’t deviate too much from the central tendency in your society. However, when you step into a foreign culture, things suddenly seem different, and you don’t want to cause offense. By using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions as a starting point, you can evaluate your approach, your decisions, and your actions, based on a general sense of how people in a particular society might think and react. Of course, everybody is unique, and no society is uniform, but you can use this model to make the unknown less intimidating, avoid making mistakes, and to provide a much-needed confidence boost when you’re working in an unfamiliar country.
This essay provides the basic understanding of culture, the layers of culture, explains Hofstede’s model, critically analyses it and also explains with example how Hofstede’s model can be practically used. It also explains the explains the example with Organisational culture inventory complex. Hofstede’s dimensions are the most discussed and is used as a road map by many when cross border business attempts are made. However, is it right to fully trust the model? Is the model valid? Does it provide all the measures to be taken before entering a cross border merger? All these questions will be answered by the end of this essay.
本文提供了对文化的基本理解，文化的层次，解释了霍夫斯泰德的模型，对其进行了批判性分析，并举例说明了霍夫斯泰德模型如何实际应用。它还解释了组织文化清单复合体的示例。霍夫斯泰德的维度是讨论最多的，很多人在进行跨境商业尝试时都将其用作路线图。然而，完全信任模型是正确的吗？模型有效吗？它是否规定了在进行跨境合并之前应采取的所有措施？所有这些问题将在本文结束时得到回答。
WHAT IS CULTURE? 什么是文化？
Recognising and understanding cultural differences is of utmost importance for the success of business across cross-border countries or even parts of the same country. Culture is defined as the pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaption and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems (Edgar Schein). As defined earlier culture is a shared set of beliefs that are shared between a group of people that determines the way of solving a problem (Trompenaars, 2000). There are various layers of culture i.e., some aspects of culture are clearly visible to an outsider while some aspects of culture are deep-rooted and it takes effort from an outsider to see them. These layers can be demonstrated with the help of the diagram as shown below.
认识和理解文化差异对于跨国界国家甚至同一国家的部分地区的商业成功至关重要。文化被定义为一个群体在解决外部适应和内部整合问题时所学习到的共同基本假设的模式，这种模式运作良好，足以被认为是有效的，因此，可以向新成员传授与这些问题相关的感知、思考和感觉的正确方式（埃德加·舍因）。如前所述，文化是一群人之间共享的一组信念，决定了解决问题的方式。文化有不同的层次，即文化的某些方面对于局外人来说是清晰可见的，而文化的一些方面是根深蒂固的，需要局外人的努力才能看到。这些层可以在下图的帮助下进行演示。
The layers of culture can be explained with the help of an analogy of a trekker climbing the tallest mountain where the level of oxygen represents the visibility of the layer. The foot of the mountain represents ARTIFACTS AND PRODUCTS which is the outermost layer of culture that is visible to an outsider and any person willing to see it just like the abundance amount of oxygen present at the foot of it. This is the layer of explicit culture and is the observable reality of the language, food, architecture, houses, monuments, agriculture, shrines, markets, fashions and art (Trompenaars,2000). Explicit culture reflects the deeper levels of culture.
文化的层次可以通过一个登山者攀登最高的山峰的类比来解释，在那里氧气的水平代表了该层的可见度。山脚代表着文物和产品，这是文化的最外层，外人和任何愿意看到它的人都可以看到，就像山脚下存在的大量氧气一样。这是显性文化的层面，是语言、食物、建筑、房屋、纪念碑、农业、神殿、市场、时尚和艺术的可观察现实。显性文化反映了文化的深层次。
The middle layer of culture is the NORMS AND VALUES represented at the average height of the mountain. The oxygen level is moderate which indicates that the visibility to an outsider is moderately low. Norms are the mutual sense a group has of what is “right” and “wrong” (Trompenaars,2000). Norms can develop on a formal level as written laws, and on an informal level as social control. Values, on the other hand, determine the definition of “good” and “bad”. It takes shared meanings of norms and values that are stable and salient for a groups cultural tradition to be developed and elaborated.
The deepest layer of culture BASIC ASSUMPTIONS represented by the mountain peak is the most difficult to reach by a normal person and just like the level of oxygen is low the visibility is also low to a foreigner. This layer of culture is formed by the underlying assumptions and has to be inferred by a person. It takes an outsiders personal effort yet difficult to understand this layer.
文化的中间层是山的平均高度所代表的规范和价值观。氧气水平适中，表明对外界的能见度较低。规范是一个群体对什么是“对”和“错”的相互感觉。规范可以在正式层面发展为成文法，在非正式层面发展为社会控制。另一方面，价值观决定了“好”和“坏”的定义。它需要规范和价值观的共同含义，这些规范和价值观念对于发展和阐述一个群体的文化传统来说是稳定和突出的。文化最深层的基本假设由山峰代表，是普通人最难到达的，就像氧气水平低一样，外国人的能见度也很低。这一层文化是由潜在的假设形成的，必须由一个人来推断。这需要局外人的个人努力，但很难理解这一层。
WHY DOES CULTURE MATTER? 为什么文化很重要？
Culture is man-made, confirmed by others, conventionalised and passed on for younger people or newcomers to learn (Trompenaars,2000). Just like how a baby learns to talk or eat or drink by looking at and learning from others cultural values are imbibed into an individual from a younger age. Even if some actions such as breathing comes involuntarily to a baby majority of its actions are driven by values learnt from its parents or a close group of elders. Furthermore, values are acquired through social group interactions at school or work. As culture directs our actions with the growing rate of globalisation it is important to acknowledge the cultural differences and understand them. Culture is the “software of the mind” (Hofstede, 2010) i.e. it determines the behaviour and expectations of an individual. A person’s pattern of thinking can be closely correlated to the thinking of the social group around him with culture as its foundation or first step. Hence, understanding the culture will increase the percentage of success when cross-country business ventures are considered. This does not mean that all the people of a particular culture think alike, stereotypes do not exist The human behaviour of a particular culture can be considered as a normal distribution with a majority of the people lying at the middle and a few outliers. (Trompenaars,2000).
文化是人为的，由他人确认，传统化，并传给年轻人或新来者学习。就像婴儿通过观察和向他人学习来学习说话、吃饭或喝酒一样，文化价值观从很小的时候就被个人吸收了。即使婴儿的某些行为（如呼吸）是非自愿的，但其大多数行为都是由从父母或一群亲密的长者那里学到的价值观驱动的。此外，价值观是通过学校或工作中的社会团体互动获得的。随着全球化速度的加快，文化指导着我们的行动，因此，承认并理解文化差异是非常重要的。文化是“心灵的软件”，即它决定个人的行为和期望。一个人的思维模式可以与他周围的社会群体的思维密切相关，文化是其基础或第一步。因此，在考虑跨国企业时，了解文化将提高成功率。这并不意味着某一特定文化的所有人都有相同的想法，也不存在陈规定型观念。特定文化的人类行为可以被视为正态分布，大多数人处于中间，少数人处于异常值。。
HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 霍夫斯泰德的文化维度
Professor Geert Hofstede conducted one of the most comprehensive studies on national values, introducing the dimension paradigm. The study was conducted within the IBM organization in 56 countries in 1970 (Hofstede,2010). His survey study has provided us with an insight into other countries and cultures, especially with respect to effective interactions between people. He identified 4 dimensions in the beginning and later went on to add 2 more dimensions derived from other surveys (Hofstede,2010). Hofstede’s identified dimensions such as power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity and uncertainty avoidance while he adopted long-term vs short-term dimension from the Chinese value survey and indulgence vs restraint from the world value survey.
Geert Hofstede教授对国家价值观进行了最全面的研究之一，引入了维度范式。该研究于1970年在IBM组织内在56个国家进行。他的调查研究为我们提供了对其他国家和文化的洞察，特别是在人与人之间的有效互动方面。他在开始时确定了4个维度，随后又添加了来自其他调查的2个维度。霍夫斯泰德确定了权力距离、个人主义与集体主义、男性气质与女性气质以及不确定性回避等维度，同时他采用了中国价值调查的长期与短期维度，以及世界价值调查的放纵与克制维度。
Power distance as defined by Professor Hofstede “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally “ (Hofstede et al,2010). Countries with high power distance like Russia or Malaysia have more centralized organizations, more complex hierarchies, large gaps in compensation, authority and respect. While the low power distance like Germany have flatter organizations and the employees are considered almost as equals.
霍夫斯泰德教授定义的权力距离“一个国家内权力较小的机构和组织成员期望并接受权力分配不平等的程度”俄罗斯或马来西亚等权力距离大的国家组织更为集中，层级结构更为复杂，薪酬、权威和尊重方面存在巨大差距。而像德国这样的低权力距离国家拥有更扁平的组织，员工被认为几乎平等。
Individualism versus collectivism refers to the strength of the ties that people have to others within their community and is defined as “Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” (Hofstede et al, 2010). As indicated in the figure above United states score high on individualism which emphasises that high value is placed on people’s time and their need for privacy and freedom. The people of these countries enjoy challenges and an expectation of individual reward for hard work. Ideologies of individual freedom prevail over ideologies of equality (Hofstede et al, 2010). Whereas the collectivist countries like Russia work for intrinsic rewards and maintaining harmony among group members overrides other moral issues. Ideologies of equality prevail over ideologies of individual freedom. (Hofstede et al, 2010)
个人主义与集体主义是指人们与社区内其他人的联系强度，定义为：“个人主义适用于个人之间联系松散的社会：每个人都被要求照顾自己及其直系亲属。集体主义则相反，它适用于这样的社会：人们从出生起就融入强大的、有凝聚力的群体中，这些群体在人的一生中都会继续保护他们，以换取毫无疑问的保护忠诚。”。美国在个人主义方面得分很高，强调高度重视人们的时间及其对隐私和自由的需求。这些国家的人民享受挑战，并期望通过努力工作获得个人回报。个人自由的意识形态胜过平等的意识形态。而像俄罗斯这样的集体主义国家则致力于获得内在回报，保持群体成员之间的和谐凌驾于其他道德问题之上。平等的意识形态胜过个人自由的意识形态。
Masculinity versus femininity dimension refers to the distribution of roles between men and women and is defined as “A society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” (Hofstede et al, 2010). Masculine countries such as Japan have strong egos-feelings of pride and importance are attributed to status while money and achievement are important. Their work goals include earnings, Recognition, advancement and challenge (Hofstede et al, 2010). Whereas the feminine countries like Russia are more relationship oriented and focus more on the quality of life. Their work goals include manageability, employment security, desirability and co-operation. (Hofstede et al, 2010).
男性与女性维度是指男女之间的角色分配，定义为：“当情感性别角色明显不同时，一个社会被称为男性社会：男性应该自信、坚强、专注于物质成功，而女性应该更谦虚、温柔、关心生活质量。当情感性别性别角色重叠时，一种社会被称之为女性社会：男性和女性都应该谦虚、温和、关心生活品质生命的意义。”像日本这样的男性国家有强烈的自尊心。骄傲感和重要性归因于地位，而金钱和成就则很重要。他们的工作目标包括收入、认可、进步和挑战。而俄罗斯等女性国家则更注重人际关系，更注重生活质量。他们的工作目标包括可管理性、就业保障、可取性和合作性。
The Uncertainty avoidance index dimension refers to how well people can cope with anxiety and is defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations.” (Hofstede et al, 2010). The countries such as Russia that score high on this dimension are more conservative rigid and structured, unless the danger of failure requires a more flexible attitude. They are expressive and allowed to show anger, if necessary. The low uncertainty avoidance countries like United states are more open to change or innovation, more inclined to open-ended learning or decision making and less sense of urgency.
不确定性回避指数维度指的是人们应对焦虑的能力，定义为“一种文化的成员受到模糊或未知情况威胁的程度”。俄罗斯等在这方面得分较高的国家更为保守、僵化和结构化，除非失败的危险需要更灵活的态度。他们富有表现力，必要时可以表达愤怒。美国等不确定性规避程度较低的国家对变革或创新更为开放，更倾向于开放式学习或决策，紧迫感较低。
Long-term versus short term orientation dimension refers to the time horizon the people of a society display and is defined as “long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards—in particular, per- severance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face,” and fulfilling social obligations.” (Hofstede et al,2010). Countries like Japan who are long term oriented depend on perseverance, sustained efforts towards slow results whereas short term countries like United States expect efforts to produce quick results. (Hofstede et al,2010). Short-term is putting importance on success during a quarterly basis, with quick results being rewarded. In long-term cultures, business is about patience and playing the long game, avoiding short-term gains that lead to long-term losses.
长期与短期定向维度是指一个社会的人所展示的时间范围，定义为：“长期取向代表培养面向未来回报的美德，特别是个人报酬和节俭。相反，短期取向代表培养与过去和现在相关的美德，尤其是尊重传统、维护“面子”和履行社会义务。”。像日本这样的长期导向型国家依赖于坚持不懈、持续的努力以取得缓慢的结果，而像美国这样的短期国家则希望努力能产生快速的结果。。短期内，每个季度都把成功放在重要位置，快速的结果会得到回报。在长期文化中，商业是关于耐心和玩长期游戏，避免导致长期损失的短期收益。
Indulgence versus Restraint dimension allow or encourage relatively free gratification of people’s own drives and emotions, such as enjoying life and having fun. It is defined as “Indulgence stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun” (Hofstede et al, 2010). Highly indulgent countries like United States are optimistic, focus on personal happiness and give importance to freedom of speech whereas the high restraint countries are pessimistic, more controlled and rigid.
放纵与约束维度允许或鼓励人们相对自由地满足自己的驱动力和情感，例如享受生活和乐趣。它被定义为“放纵意味着允许相对自由地满足与享受生活和乐趣相关的人类基本和自然欲望的倾向”。像美国这样高度放纵的国家是乐观的，关注个人幸福，重视言论自由，而高度克制的国家则是悲观的，更受控制和僵化。
LIMITATIONS OF HOFSTEDE’S SURVEY 霍夫斯泰德调查的局限性
Professor Geert Hofstede conducted a survey to measure the cultural differences across different countries with the help of IBM employees. His work has been useful to acknowledge that cultural differences play an important part while cross border business is to be carried out successfully and Hofstede’s work on culture is the most widely cited in existence (Bond 2002). regardless of my appreciation to his effort and thought I choose to disagree that the culture of a nation as a whole can be scored.
Many people followed professor Hofstede and researched about the same topics like Trompenaars (1993), Hall’s (1976), House et al (2004) but came to a slightly different conclusion with respect to the number of dimensions like Trompenaars came up with 7 dimensions (Trompenaars,1993), Chinese value survey came up with 4 (Hofstede, 2010) This proves that culture has more dimensions and that it depends on the questionnaire to determine the number of dimensions which can be supported by the adoption of the last two dimensions from other surveys. As Hofstede surveyed only 66 countries there is a lack of data with respect to the other countries. Moreover different organisations in the same country have different cultures and cultures can be subdivided as macro culture, sub culture, micro culture etc(Bicket,2018).
Geert Hofstede教授在IBM员工的帮助下进行了一项调查，以衡量不同国家的文化差异。他的工作有助于认识到文化差异在成功开展跨境业务的过程中起着重要作用，霍夫斯泰德的文化工作是目前被引用最多的。尽管我对他的努力和思想表示赞赏，但我选择不同意一个国家作为一个整体的文化是可以得分的。许多人跟随霍夫斯泰德教授，研究了相同的主题，如特罗姆佩纳尔、豪斯等人在维度数量方面得出了略微不同的结论，如特罗姆佩纳尔提出了7个维度，中国价值观调查得出了4个维度。这证明文化有更多的维度，并且取决于问卷来确定维度的数量，这可以通过采用其他调查中的最后两个维度来支持。由于霍夫斯泰德只调查了66个国家，因此缺乏其他国家的数据。此外，同一国家的不同组织具有不同的文化，文化可细分为宏观文化、亚文化、微观文化等。
The notion of ‘culture’ has multiple definitions (Kroeber &Kluckholm,1952; Bock,1999). Sometimes it is applied exclusively or “recordable’’ (Lukacs,1971). Alternatively it can be applied as ‘subjective” or implicitly as used by Professor Hofstede ( McSweeney,2002). Nation culture has been characterised as the core by Hofstede, on the contrary it can be treated as ‘complete’ (McSweeney,2002). Within the wider literature, the causal status of culture varies from being a supremely independent variable, the superordinate power in society to0, at the other extreme, a mere epiphenomenon, a powerless superstructure (Archer, 1989; Alexander & Seidman, 1990) . It is possible to assume the existence of national culture but without attributing significant and unique, indeed any, social patterning effects to such cultures. However, Hofstede (1991) credits strong, often absolute, causality to national cultures (e.g. p. 170). Essentially he endorses national cultural determinism. (McSweeney,2002) National culture as measured by Hofstede is the average culture of the entire nation and cannot be used blindly. We need to acknowledge the fact that culture is territorially unique (McSweeney,2002). For example India is a diverse country with each state having a different culture but as measured by Hofstede it is the average of 29 states with a few dominant states. The survey provides a statistical average of heterogeneous components (McSweeney,2002). L.Schmitz disproved Hofstede’s claim that his dimensions are applicable not only in a high number of nations, but also among all subsamples within these nations (Schmitz,2014).A problem with methodological simplicity is the question of the researcher’s background, that is, research tends to be from only one discipline, a better foundation is for multi-disciplinary approach (sociology, psychology, political science, economics, anthropology, etc.) (Nasif et al. 1991, 83-84). The number of representatives from some nations are very low or minimal which does injustice to the score of national culture. In 15 countries (Chile, Columbia, Greece, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey) the numbers were less than 200. The first survey in Pakistan was of 37 IBM employees, the second of 70 employees (Hofstede, 1980). The only surveys in Hong Kong and Singapore were of 88, 71 and 58 respondents respectively (Hofstede, 1980 as cited by McSweeney,2002). In a survey conducted by L.Schmitz to check the validity of Hofstede’s claim that his dimensions are applicable not only in a high number of nations, but also among all subsamples within these nations, was disproved by Schmitz. (Schmitz,2014).
“文化”的概念有多种定义。有时，它仅适用于或“可记录”。或者，它可以作为“主观”或隐含地应用于Hofstede教授。霍夫斯泰德将民族文化定性为核心，相反，它可以被视为“完整的”。在更广泛的文献中，文化的因果地位从一个至高无上的独立变量，社会中的至高无上权力，到0，在另一个极端，仅仅是一个附属物，一个无力的上层建筑。可以假设民族文化的存在，但不将其归因于任何重要和独特的文化，事实上，社会模式对这种文化的影响。然而，霍夫斯泰德认为，民族文化之间存在着强烈的、往往是绝对的因果关系。本质上，他支持民族文化决定论。霍夫斯泰德衡量的民族文化是整个民族的平均文化，不能盲目使用。我们需要承认文化在地域上是独特的。例如，印度是一个多元化的国家，每个州都有不同的文化，但根据霍夫斯泰德的衡量，印度是29个州的平均数，只有几个占主导地位的州。该调查提供了异质成分的统计平均值。Schmitz反驳了Hofstede的说法，即他的维度不仅适用于大量国家，而且适用于这些国家的所有子样本。方法简单性的一个问题是研究者的背景问题，即研究往往只来自一个学科，多学科方法（社会学、心理学、政治学、经济学、人类学等）是更好的基础。一些国家的代表人数非常少或很少，这对民族文化的得分是不公平的。在15个国家（智利、哥伦比亚、希腊、香港、伊朗、爱尔兰、以色列、新西兰、巴基斯坦、秘鲁、菲律宾、新加坡、台湾、泰国和土耳其），这一数字不到200。在巴基斯坦，第一次调查的对象是37名IBM员工，第二次是70名员工。香港和新加坡的唯一调查分别是88人、71人和58人。在L.Schmitz进行的一项调查中，为了验证霍夫斯泰德的说法的有效性，他认为他的维度不仅适用于大量国家，而且适用于这些国家的所有子样本，但被Schmitz驳斥。
SECTION 2:
FAILURE OF DAIMLER CHRYSLER MERGER 戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并的失败
BACKGROUND OF THE MERGER 合并的背景
Daimler-Benz, the well established German car manufacturer was founded in 1926.the name Daimler-Benz stands for German high quality and precision products. They represent cars of the luxury sector. Despite its success in the German and European countries Daimler-Benz market share of the U.S American was less than 1(Hollman et al,2010). Chrysler on the other hand, used to be a well-established and firmly positioned organization in the U.S. American market. Chrysler succeeded in producing car models that responded to the American demand for adventurousness and pioneering. (FINKELSTEIN, 2002). In the year 1997, Chrysler’s market shares of the U.S. American car industry equalled about 23%. (Hollman et al,2010) But in the mid 90’s time became hard for the car industry and Daimler-Benz and Chrysler decided to merge to overcome the challenges imposed due to overcapacities, a strengthened position of clients and rising environmental consciousness. Therefore, from the point of view of Daimler-Benz it could also strengthen its position in the US market.() On May 7 , 1998 the two chief executives Robert J. Eaton, CEO of the Chrysler Corporation at times, and Jürgen E. Schrempp, former CEO of Daimler-Benz, announced the merger of the two car producers. The DaimlerChrysler AG was founded and became the world’s third biggest car manufacturer, only defeated by Ford and General Motors in terms of yearly revenues and market share (The economist 1998). The merger of the two carmakers was considered a ‘merger of equals’(The Economist,1998).
戴姆勒-奔驰是一家知名的德国汽车制造商，成立于1926年。戴姆勒·奔驰这个名字代表着德国的高品质和精密产品。他们代表了豪华汽车行业。尽管戴姆勒-奔驰在德国和欧洲国家取得了成功，但其在美国的市场份额不足。另一方面，克莱斯勒过去在美国市场上是一家成熟且地位稳固的公司。克莱斯勒成功地生产出了满足美国对冒险精神和开拓精神需求的车型。1997年，克莱斯勒在美国汽车行业的市场份额约为23%。但在90年代中期，汽车行业变得艰难，戴姆勒-奔驰和克莱斯勒决定合并，以克服产能过剩、客户地位增强和环境意识增强带来的挑战。因此，从戴姆勒-奔驰的角度来看，它也可以加强其在美国市场的地位。1998年5月7日，两位首席执行官，时任克莱斯勒公司首席执行官罗伯特·J·伊顿和戴姆勒-奔驰公司前首席执行官朱尔根·E·施伦普宣布两家汽车制造商合并。戴姆勒-克莱斯勒公司成立，成为世界第三大汽车制造商，在年收入和市场份额方面仅次于福特和通用汽车。这两家汽车制造商的合并被认为是“平等的合并”。
THE CLASH OF NATIONAL CULTURE 民族文化的冲突
Even though the companies were optimistic about the success of the merger, it was harder than they thought despite their common goals and background. Decision making at Daimler-Benz, for example, was approached very methodical; at Chrysler on the other hand, creativity in the decision making process was asked for and strongly encouraged (Hollman et al,2010). Furthermore, the German and Americans employees resulted to be very different in their working methods: very long or even endless reports and discussions versus reports based on the minimum necessary. The Americans preferred the trial- and-error-method to come to a solution and that is why they thought to be very chaotic and disorganized, because the Germans favoured to develop detailed plans and the precise implementation of these plans. This point proves the high uncertainty avoidance of Germany and low uncertainty avoidance of US. Among Chrysler’s values you find efficiency, empowerment of the employees and equal rights among all staff; Daimler-Benz’ culture is more based on authority, bureaucracy and centralized decision making (Hollman et al,2010). This proves the high individualistic score of US and the relatively collectivistic behaviour of Germany. The American managers received very generous pay packages that were disapproved of by their German counterparts. This amounted to problems, particularly when an American manager was transferred to Germany, for example, and gained twice as much as his new supervisor. (DUTTA, 2001) . This was not acceptable as Germany has a lower power distance and hierarchy is to be respected. Chrysler’s management backs on flat hierarchies, which causes incomprehension among the Germans that are known for their pronounced hierarchies and their top-down-management proving the power distance difference (Hollman et al,2010). Furthermore, the German and Americans employees resulted to be very different in their working methods: very long or even endless reports and discussions versus reports based on the minimum necessary. The Americans preferred the trial- and-error-method to come to a solution and that is why they thought to be very chaotic and disorganized, because the Germans favoured to develop tailed plans and the precise implementation of these plans (Hollman et al,2010).
尽管两家公司对合并的成功持乐观态度，但尽管有共同的目标和背景，这比他们想象的要困难。例如，戴姆勒-奔驰的决策过程非常有条理；另一方面，克莱斯勒要求并大力鼓励决策过程中的创造力。此外，德国和美国员工的工作方法也大不相同：报告和讨论非常长，甚至无休止，而不是基于最低限度的必要报告。美国人倾向于采用试错法来解决问题，这就是为什么他们认为这是非常混乱和无组织的，因为德国人倾向于制定详细的计划并精确实施这些计划。这一点证明了德国的高不确定性回避和美国的低不确定性回避。在克莱斯勒的价值观中，你们会发现效率、赋予员工权力和所有员工的平等权利；戴姆勒-奔驰的文化更多地基于权威、官僚作风和集中决策。这证明了美国个人主义的高分和德国相对集体主义的行为。美国经理们得到了非常慷慨的薪酬，但德国经理们并不赞同。这相当于问题，特别是当一名美国经理被调到德国，并获得了他新上司的两倍的收入时。这是不可接受的，因为德国的权力距离较低，需要尊重等级制度。克莱斯勒的管理层支持扁平的等级制度，这导致德国人不理解，因为德国人以其明显的等级制度和自上而下的管理证明了权力距离的差异。此外，德国和美国员工的工作方法也大不相同：报告和讨论非常长，甚至无休止，而不是基于最低限度的必要报告。美国人倾向于采用试错法来解决问题，这就是为什么他们认为这是非常混乱和无组织的，因为德国人倾向于制定跟踪计划并精确实施这些计划。
Blue colour represents the constructive sector, red represents the aggressive destructive sector and green represents the passive destructive sector(Bicket,2018). United states of America score high on achievement and conventional sectors while Germany scores high on avoidance, oppositional and power sectors, with almost equal scores on the self actualizing, humanistic encouragement, affiliative, approval, dependant, competitive and perfectionistic sectors. Even though major sectors of this OCI model coincide the differences on the other sectors explain the reason for its failure. The scores on this OCI complex indicate that US is more focussed on achieving excellence, disciplined and focussed on outcome. The high scores on conventional behaviour indicates reduced initiative and originality, unquestioned obedience to authority figures and rules (Bicket,2018) which contradicts Hofstede’s high score on indulgence. Germany’s high scores on some sectors indicate that they fear failure, avoid risky situations, detached from people, sarcasm, a need for high power status, influence and narrow thinking (Bicket,2018).. To illustrate an example of high oppositional behaviour a joke at Chrysler was: “How do you pronounce Daimler- Chrysler?” – “Daimler, the “Chrysler” is silent” (Camerer and Weber, 2003, p 401). It shows that the attempt of Daimler to dominate had a negative influence inside the company. Though the companies had more constructive behaviour’s the destructive behaviour overshadowed them and the merger led to a failure. The American organizational model emphasises that the American’s are highly goal oriented which means that they are more interested in the result obtained and not the path taken towards it (Hollman et al,2010). They also value time as they are competitive and individualistic. Obtaining success early ensures them better rewards. Whereas the German organisational model is more risk-averse than the Americans (Hollman et al,2010). They are team oriented and respect authority and hierarchy. The German’s prefer developing a detailed plan and all steps laid out with precision (Hollman et al,2010).
蓝色代表建设性部门，红色代表积极破坏性部门，绿色代表消极破坏性部门。美国在成就和传统领域得分较高，而德国在回避、反对和权力领域得分较高。在自我实现、人文鼓励、依附、认可、依赖、竞争和完美主义领域得分几乎相等。尽管该OCI模型的主要部门一致，但其他部门的差异解释了其失败的原因。这个OCI综合体的分数表明，美国更注重实现卓越、纪律严明和注重结果。传统行为的高分表明主动性和独创性降低，毫无疑问地服从权威人物和规则，这与霍夫斯泰德的放纵高分相矛盾。德国在某些领域的高分表明，他们害怕失败、避免危险情况、脱离人群、讽刺、需要高权力地位、影响力和狭隘思维，为了说明高度对立行为的一个例子，克莱斯勒开了一个玩笑：“戴姆勒-克莱斯勒怎么发音？”“戴姆勒，克莱斯勒是沉默的”。这表明，戴姆勒试图占据主导地位对公司内部产生了负面影响。虽然这两家公司的行为更具建设性，但破坏性的行为让它们黯然失色，合并也导致了失败。美国的组织模式强调美国人高度目标导向，这意味着他们更关注获得的结果，而不是走向结果的道路。他们也重视时间，因为他们具有竞争性和个人主义。尽早获得成功可以确保他们获得更好的回报。而德国的组织模式比美国的风险规避程度更高。他们以团队为导向，尊重权威和等级制度。德国人更喜欢制定详细的计划，并精确规划所有步骤。
CONCLUSION 结论
A large number of cross-border M&As fail because of seemingly insurmountable difficulties. And so did as well the merger between the two car manufacturers Daimler-Benz and the Chrysler Corporation. The promising merger failed due to cultural discrepancies that could not be bridged. The failure of this merger was not caused by the fact that it did not make sense to join two successfully operating businesses of the same sector in order to make use of the one company’s strengths to complement the other company’s weaknesses. From a strategic point of view, this merger did make sense (DUTTA, 2001), but the problems that doomed the merger to failure were the opposing and contrary corporate cultures and organizational models, that presented insurmountable obstacles. Inspite of all the research and business models being developed it is also noticed that 83% of mergers were unsuccessful in producing any business benefit as regards to shareholder value (John Kelly,1999). Since there is no right way of doing things we have to acknowledge that cultural differences are present and try to form a third culture that is an amalgamation of the two cultures. Work with harmony and understanding. One particular model or research will not give the perfect solution to the problems faced in business but it can surely be used as a compass to point us at the right directions. Some ways in which the problems can be overcome are, we have to recognise the complex demands of international roles, embrace the uncertainty, challenge the ambiguity inherent in cross-cultural teams (Stephen martin, 2006). We have to adopt techniques like pick the right management team, integrate the project planning, and encourage communication among employees (John Kelly,1999). Diversifying the organisation with employees from various parts of the world will also help with the challenges faced. With the right effort all the challenges can be overcome and can lead to success.
REFERENCES 参考文献
Alexander, J.C. & Seidman, S. (Eds) Culture and society: Contemporary debates. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990
Archer, M.S. Culture & agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1989
Bicket.N (2018) National culture vs Corporate Culture: conflict or synergy?, from LCBS5042 Business across Cultures, De Montfort University, Hugh Aston Building on 29th October2018.available from blackboard [Accessed 24/11/2018].
Bock, P.K. Rethinking psychological anthropology, 2nd edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Wave- land, 1999.
Bond, M. H. (2002). “Reclaiming the Individual From Hofstede’s Ecological Analysis- A 20-Year Odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).” Psychological Bulletin 128(1): 73-77.
Camerer and Weber (2003) Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 4, April 2003
DUTTA, S. Daimler-Chrysler Merger: a cultural Mismatch. Hyderabad, 2001.
FINKELSTEIN, S. (2002), The DaimlerChrysler Merger. Dartmouth, 2002
Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. (2010)(1998), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
John Kelly (1999), Mergers and Acquisitions: Global Research Report 1999, KPMG, the UK member firm of KPMG International.
Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhohn, C. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. In Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 47. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952.
Lukacs, G. History and class consciousness, trans. R. Livingstone. London: Merlin Press, 1971. (Originally published 1922.)
McSweeney, B. (2002), Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89-117.
MITTERMAIR, K.; KNOUREK, A. Cross Border- M&A. In: Strategisches Management von Mergers & Acquisitions – State of the Art in Deutschland und Österreich, 23-40. Wiesbaden, 2006.
Nasif, E. G., H. Al-Daeaj, B. Ebrahimi and M. S. Thibodeaux (1991). “Methodological Problems in Cross-Cultural Research: An Updat.” Management International Review 31(1): 79.
Business Essay写作范文在文末总结：由于看似无法克服的困难，大量跨境并购失败。两大汽车制造商戴姆勒-奔驰和克莱斯勒公司的合并也是如此。由于无法弥合的文化差异，有希望的合并失败了。这次合并的失败并不是因为为了利用一家公司的优势来补充另一家公司，将同一部门的两个成功运营的企业合并是没有意义的。从战略角度来看，这一合并是有意义的，但导致合并失败的问题是对立和对立的企业文化和组织模式，它们构成了不可逾越的障碍。尽管正在开发所有的研究和商业模式，但也注意到83%的合并未能产生股东价值方面的任何商业利益。Business Essay同时又提出由于没有正确的做事方式，我们必须承认存在文化差异，并努力形成第三种文化，即两种文化的融合。以和谐和理解的方式工作。一个特定的模型或研究不会为企业面临的问题提供完美的解决方案，但它肯定可以作为指南针，为我们指明正确的方向。克服这些问题的一些方法是，我们必须认识到国际角色的复杂要求，接受不确定性，挑战跨文化团队固有的模糊性。我们必须采用诸如选择正确的管理团队、整合项目规划和鼓励员工之间的沟通等技术。让来自世界各地的员工参与组织的多元化也将有助于应对所面临的挑战。只要做出正确的努力，所有的挑战都可以克服，并取得成功。本站提供各国各专业Essay代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。