There has been a growing question whether graduates from the popular English-medium business programs are, indeed, well-equipped to work in ‘international environments’. Significantly, ‘soft skills’ such as critical thinking, international language communication, problem solving are important and can be beneficial in creating global professionals as “they strive to reposition themselves in a world where the ‘creative destruction’ of organisations and working lives is the norm” (Battersby, 2003, p.55). Globalisation “is frequently misunderstood as an inevitable process of ‘McDonaldization’ that renders down cultural difference in the unfolding teleology of the global village.” Battersby (2003) also states that, in practice, there is a strong connection between culture and “global business professional” that,
Global business professionals cannot hope to one-day traverse a monochrome landscape of cultural sameness even though many standardised business and economics texts either diminish cultural issues or otherwise banish them altogether from view. Post-modern capitalism demands greater not less appreciation of the human element in capitalist production. (p.54)
The world of corporate business values knowledge resources as important factors in improving and increasing productivity. Accordingly, ‘knowledge innovation’ is currently at the centre of attention of business industries striving to maintain their competitive advantage in the global economy in association with information technology advancement. There is an overwhelming evidence that intellectual skills taught in humanities are widely and significantly applicable in professional practice. Therefore, culture does matter. It is logical and relevant rather than superfluous to practical business matters in the more thoughtful literature in the international business disciplines matters. The integration of humanities to
critical practice in business is discussed by a team of cross-cultural communication consultants from the Princeton-based Training Management Corporation that,
Culture is inextricably incorporated into business, managerial practice and behaviour, and economic development. As people from different cultures with different values and beliefs interact, management practice and process are critically affected and success in the attainment of performance objectives is critically influenced by the most subtle, often invisible, yet deeply ingrained elements of the human character. (Walker, Walker & Schmitz, 2003, 32)
However, there is an emerging assumption of those who render the idea that in the global village cultural differences are becoming less and less relevant, especially, in the ‘borderless world’ of transnational business and communication. Globalisation is perceived among globalists as the significant force weakening specialisations and functions of communities. Consequently, they believe in the emergence of universalised values and ‘global’ symbols. Kenichi Ohmae argues that cultural homogenisation is an unavoidable consequence of economic globalisation. As he explained,
For more than a decade, some of us have been talking about the progressive globalization of markets for consumer goods like Levi’s jeans, Nike athletic shoes, and Hermes scarves – a process, driven by global exposure to the same information, the same cultural icons, and the same advertisements, that I have elsewhere referred to as the “California-ization” of taste. Today, however, the process of convergence goes faster and deeper. It reaches well beyond taste to much more fundamental dimensions of worldview, mind-set, and thought process. There are now for example tens of millions of teenagers around the world who, having been raised in a multimedia rich environment, have a lot more in common with each other than they do with members of older generations in their own cultures. For these budding consumers, technology- driven convergence does not take place at the sluggish rate dictated by yesterday’s media. It is instantaneous- a nanosecond migration of ideas and innovations. (Ohmae, 1996, p.15).
Attitudes towards work and education in Asia and Western countries differ in subtle but important ways. Asian and Western attitudes towards work and educational practice are the two most debatable and contested words in both Eastern and Western societies. Significant differences have been highlighted among intercultural management experts and educational researchers. One of the pioneers of intercultural management research, Geert Hofstede (1994), refers to culture as the “software of the mind”. His metaphor suggests that culture operates in the same way as computer programs do - by laying down the codes for information storage and retrieval. Therefore, it is shaping the availability of options to utilise, refine and add to directories of prior learning. Both Hofstede and Trompenaars construct “dimensions of culture” to represent empirical cultural differences between nation-states. Some well-known examples of this approach are: individualism-collectivism, achievement-ascription, and high
power distance and low power distance dimensions. Observations of high power distance and low power distance are particularly highlighted in regard to international workplace environments (including academe) in Thailand. Thailand, as a hierarchical society, is ranked high on power distance where “inequalities among people are both expected and desired” (Hofstede, 1991, p.37. In the same vein, “hierarchy in organizations reflects the existential inequality between higher-ups and lower-downs” and in school, “teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class” (Hofstede, 1991, p.37).
It is notable in Hofstede’s model that “culture shapes, but does not determine individual behaviour or individual choice”. Accordingly, developing respect for cultural differences is important in any circumstances for individuals who consider themselves as ‘different’. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) suggest that “respect is most effectively developed once we realise that most cultural differences are in ourselves, even if we have not yet recognised them” (p.198). Significantly, shared meanings and agreed behaviours are necessary to avoid miscommunication and chaos. Practically, language and culture are inseparable elements of human development. It must be acknowledged that Hofstede’s work reflects data collected before countries, such as Thailand, were exposed to the cultural influences of Western consumer capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s. However, while attitudes and behavioural expectations can be altered, Hofstede’s dimensions of culture provide insights into cultural backdrop of contemporary education and business practice in Thailand. An existing body of literature reviews claims to distinguish differences between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ cultures. Richard E. Nisbett’s The Geography of Thought: How Asians and
Westerners think differently and why (2003) is one of the more recent contributions in this field. By employing the binary opposites of ‘East’ and ‘West’, the classical distinction between the Westerners as ‘us’ and the Orientals as ‘them’ is perpetuated (Said, 1979). Hofstede (1991) and Trompenaars (1997) highlight the popular wisdom held in Asian societies where the uniformly collectivist ‘we’ is contrasted with the ‘me’ of the individualistically-centred Western societies. To some extent, cultural generalisations are useful referents for intercultural managers and teachers to plan their program strategies around. It is important to mention that, in many societies, there is a tendency towards collectivism which does not inhibit individual entrepreneurship, creativity, political dissent, selfishness, independence or other qualities commonly associated with individualism. The shortcomings of cultural generalisations have to be acknowledged as they only offer a frame
for cultural references but are blind to more subtle cultural meanings. This view is highlighted in Harry Irwin’s Communicating with Asia that,
The danger for communication occurs when broad cultural stereotypes become the basis for interactions between individuals regardless of their unique attributes, backgrounds and motives. The problem lies in believing it not to be necessary to know the individual with whom one is attempting to communicate (Irwin, 1996, p. 17).