Contrasting UK and Australian Work Culture and CSR Practices Assignment Sample

Cultural Influences on Regional Work Processes and Relationships Assignment provided by New Assignment Help

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
13 Pages 3337Words

Introduction Of Managing Across Cultures Assignment

Link to a reliable source for assignment help in the UK — New Assignment Help — to enhance your academic performance.

There is a significant difference in the work culture in different regions. The course of the work process and workhour differs from one region and the others and hence the same applies to the relationship that prevails in the work process in different regions. In this study, the interrelationship will discuss that exists between the prevalence of the work culture and its relationship with organisational practices and CSR will be discussed. The difference in the cultural practices will be established in adherence to certain theoretical models that govern the overall work process However, a contract will be established that prevails in the work culture and ethics among UK and Australian managers.

1. Culture and organisations relationship: UK and Australian managers’ difference

1.1 Hall’s and Hofstede’s theoretical models of culture:

There are various theoretical models that associate with the courses of relationship that prevails in the work process in different organisations and their associated cultural practices. This contrast or the interrelationship is established due to the various internal as well as external factors that influence the overall temperament of people involved with an organisation. Certain theoretical models are taken into practice in the cultural variance of the work process which best suits the overall work process and its associated quality and productivity.

In case of Hall’s cultural factor, him being an eminent anthropologist has defined the cultural process in three distinct dimensions.In the initial case of the context, he emphasises the aspect of communication in terms of the information that is being exchanged throughout. A course of communication rich in various information is considered a high-context culture where several “unwritten rules” prevails that elaborate the norms and guidelines for the work culture. This involves a lot of non-verbal communication and the low-context culture is highly straight to the point and does not elaborate much in the first place and emphasises verbal communication. Hence they are not taken for granted. The low context culture prevails in mobile environments.

Hall’s model utilisation of time in two distinct sections. As opined by Shaules, (2019), the monochronic time emphasises focusing on one particular task at a time and considering it through the course of planning it highly emphasises “time management”. The polychronic time ponders on the course of human interaction and relationships in an organisation.

The aspect of space considers certain sections. People need space to perform their tasks and in some sections, there are maintain high territoriality affirming their ownership and authority on the task process this is observed in highly competitive work ambience (Paiuc, 2021). The low territoriality in work culture reflects more on an interactive and cooperative flow of work culture between different departments and even the co-workers of the same division.

Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory assesses the differences between the cultural practices that prevail in different countries associated with the work culture and this aspect is highly critical to be noted in this aspect as it includes th key differences between the work practices and their approaches towards the factors the leads to the temperament in the overall work culture prevailing in an organisation working in a particular country. There are six key dimensions in the application of Hofstede's model of work culture that prevails in an organisation. The power distance index in an organisation determines the tolerance of the power order prevailing in an organsiaotn, a higher index determines a hierarchical structure with unequal power deference in an organisation, and a lower power index indicates a decentralised work culture focuses on a participative management style (Posadzinska et al 2020). It emphasis on effective power division.

Another key dimension includes th aspect of individualism and collectivism that denotes the differences in work culture. The course of individualism focuses more on the attainment of personal goals and as the names suggest the collectivist approach focuses more on a collaborative approach to the work process that focuses on efficient team management.

Risk management is another important dimension of work culture and a high index refers to a more on safer decision-making process associated with the internal as well as the external conditions associated with the organisation. The aspect of masculinity and femininity is reflected in two distinct sections of workplace culture, the first is focused on goal orientation and materialistic achievements while the latter focuses on team management, catering to diversity and overall employee management in an organisation.

The aspect of workplace orientation mostly focuses on the overall work culture that prevails in an organisayion that first focuses on the long-term aspect of future decisions in association with perseverance and long-term benefit. The short-term orientation focuses on the near future in association with current situations. As opined by Kucharska and Bedford, (2019), the indulgence and the restraint aspect is mostly associated with different decision making processes, when the manager either indulges or restraints the organisational body to take certain decisions in consideration of the scenario that prevails.

Both of these theoretical models are important to consider in management and the associated culture that prevails in an organisation. These theoretical models are considered based on the workforce and their associated attitude, communication, skills and other factors that define the work culture. The aforementioned factors drive the cultural dimensions in the workplace that are denoted by Hoffstde’s models in association with the driving factors of workplace efficiency that can be derived from Hall’s models. The monochronic and polychronic factors in the work culture significantly impact the overall activities and cultural practices that work in an organisation of a country. It drives their overall work culture and the course of communication that prevails in the factors of the context of communication (Beugelsdijk and Welzel, 2018). This course of driving factors of work culture helps in affirming the overall dimensions of culture that prevail in an organisation.

Both of these theoretical approaches are different from one another in defining the influential factors of an organisation's culture however they are co-relatedwith one other in defending the driving factors that impact the temperament of the workforce and their associated engagement with the organisation and its aims.

1.2 Culture and organisational practices: UK and Australian managers

There is a significant difference that can be noted in workplace culture and it is driven by certain factors that are prevalent in society. The workplace of UK-based organisations is mostly driven by the ambience that is prevalent in the culture of the country. Society values competition and success and also focus on individual success more than the collective approach among the cultural dimensions. The UK has a low score on the uncertainty avoidance index valued at 35 (, 2022). This implies that the organisation are a high-risk taker. The British culture is high on the context culture and hence emphasises the polychronic cultureprevalent in the organisation. Accoeridng to Khan et al. (2019), the workplace culture focuses on modesty, politeness, diversity and punctuality in UK. It emphasising the femininity aspect of the cultural dimension.

Australian culture also focuses on individualistic approaches and focuses on individual goals and success.The management style in this country awards transparency in a work culture that reflects on the prevalent low context culture in their management style and also a competitive nature in the business process. Australia has a low uncertainity avoidance index with family centered approach (, 2022).The country has a high score of on the scale of indulgence. It reflects on the impulsive decision-making process and the head-on challenge-taking attitude in different scenarios. As opined by Powell et al. (2018), the Australian culture of the work process is heavily reliant on the masculine aspect of decision making process which is driven by the achievement-oriented attitude. However, the management in Australia focuses on a flat hierarchical structure and equal distribution of power reflected in the low power index.

All these aforementioned aspects of the management and workplace culture are driven by the culture and attitude of the people of that particular nation.

2. Culture and CSR relationship: Australian and UK managers’ contrast

2.1 Culture and CSR

The culture of a business manager shows what type of style is used in the business. This helps to create an idea about the process of business handling. On the other side, business also has a part called CSR, which has a great impact on the customers. In this part, business is based on social responsibilities (Kucharska and Kowalczyk, 2019). In every country, there are many cultures and business management also has many different styles and approaches.

Australian business culture is very straight to the point. In any situation, if any Australian businessman wants to do business then they do not think of any other things. They are receptive to new ideas. Their decision-making process is slow but they also demonstrate modesty as much as they appreciate. In Australia, their CSR view is very clear. They take all the responsibility to create a healthy environment and economic opportunity by investing in human resources.

The UK also has a culture of business management. From the very beginning, the British are known for their “tongue in cheek”. For that reason, they are very polite, punctual, and courteous to their principal of the business. In the UK CSR is starting in the seventeenth century (Žukauskas et al. 2018). It starts from the western countries and nowadays it became the main priority to create a healthy environment.

2.2 Hofstede’s and Trompenaars cultural models

Hofstede's cultural model

Hofstede’s cultural model defines the impact of different individual cultures in business management. This model is help to compare other cultures in business management and what is the difference between notional cultures. There are six steps in this model. First is the power distance index, which says that equality and inequality are tolerated. The second step is, individualism vs. collectivism, which means the difference between a cultural group of people and the dependency of any individuals in that group (Wan et al. 2020). The third step of this model is masculinity vs. femininity, it is elaborate on the difference between heroic achievements in society and modesty, caring for the weak. The fourth step of this is strong vs. weak, it defines how people cope in their day-to-day life. The fifth step of this is long vs. short orientation, this difference elaborates the approach to the goal and emphasis good results. The sixth step is, indulgence vs. restraint, it shows the difference between enjoying life as obvious and surprising gratification from life.

Trompenaar’s cultural models

Trompenaar’s model also explains the difference and contrast between two or more cultures. This model explains the cultural differences the according to the different cultural areas. There are seven steps in this model. One is universalism and particularism which indicates the difference between placing the value on predetermined rules to outcomes and determined actions in a particular circumstance (Bhuiyan et al. 2020). Two individualism vs. communitarianism shows the difference between personal value and communal achievements. Three specific vs. diffusion means the difference between personal life and work life. In this step, a person has to balance their personal life with their professional life. The fourth step is neutral vs. emotional defines the conflict of how people react in a circumstance, the person is taking a step with emotion or taking a step with a neutral perspective. Five achievements vs. ascription means having an important place in a workplace (White and Alkandari, 2019). The state a person is working is very important in this step. The sixth step is sequential times or synchronous times which means the problem and solved or a decision is made at a particular time or the time period is overlapping. The last step is inter direction or the outer direction. This step points toward the difference between the environment and the people. It made a very clear vision of people being controlled by the environment or the environment being controlled by the people.

2.3 Complimentary between Hofstede’s and Trompenaar’s cultural models

Hofstede and Trompenaar’s models are so much related to this study. These two models are indicates some common factors that every cultural difference can apply. In the UK or in Australia this common factor is applied in any corner of the world. The main common factor of these two models is both models are focused on the ultimate goal state. For example, an Australian manager wants to do their job to enhance the market value for the organization in which they work on the other hand a UK manager also has the same goal to achieve a known face in the market. In this case, these two models are pointing out in the same place (Chen et al. 2018). The next common factor of these two models underlines the facts which are related to the environment. Both of these two models are saying about the outer direction which means that Corporate Social responsibility is the most important thing for any business. For example, maybe Australia is too much straight to business, but Australia also applied the CSR process in every business project. The UK is very polite, punctual, and courteous about any project which is why before starting a project the project managers apply the CSR process in the project, and after that, they are starting that. Hofstede and Trompenaar’s models, both are very important for the project and also for the manager who wanted to enhance the business graph in the industry. These both models are very important for any organization to achieve its goal (Li et al . 2020). So the common factors are to prioritize the point which is very much applicable to the organization.

2.4 Difference between Hofstede’s and Trompenaar’s cultural models

People coming from different cultures always anticipate small details to form a global idea and this same thing is applicable in the case of cultural models. Hofstede's model and Trompenaar’s modes have many differences in their theoretical models. It is very difficult to say which is right and which is wrong. The difference between these two models is very important for any organization but these two models are used from different perspectives (Dey et al. 2018). Trompenaar’s model mainly says about the personal characteristics in business management on the other hand Hofstede's model says about the logic of organization and framework. Taking a closer look into this will help to know about the cultural differences and CSR applies differently in every part of the world.

Hofstede’s model of cultural differences reflects on the basic differences associated with the culture of people and their reflection upon the work culture. There are six dimensions of determinants that include the differentiate factors that drive the entire decision-making course of people in the country associative influencers the overall work culture that prevails in an organization that is operating in the country (, 2022). A quantifiable index reflects on new scores that ponder on the attribute the organizational decision-making process aligns with (Brin et al. 2020). These cultural factors note the prospect of organizational behaviors and the decision-making process of the management body and the entirety of the workforce. Countries like UK and Australia have different attributes of the decision-making process.


The organizational culture and the workplace environment are motivated by the internal as well as external factors involved. The cultural factor involved in countries associated with the people resign within. There are certain theoretical models like Hall’s model, Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions, and Trompenaar’s models that are associated with the aspects of communication and cultural factors that drive the overall attributes of the overall governance and management style of an organization. The entire course of the work process in these countries influences the nature and attitude of people subsequently the workplaces. Countries like UK and Australia have their own district trait of communication and cultural practices that are reflected in their work culture.



Beugelsdijk, S. and Welzel, C., 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 49(10), pp.1469-1505.

Bhuiyan, F., Baird, K. and Munir, R., 2020. The association between organisational culture, CSR practices and organisational performance in an emerging economy. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(6), pp.977-1011.

Brin, P., Nehme, M. and Polan?i?, G., 2020. Corporate social responsibility as an instrument of increasing country competitiveness. Torun International Studies, (13), pp.131-150.

Chen, Z.F., Hong, C. and Occa, A., 2018. How different CSR dimensions impact organization-employee relationships: The moderating role of CSR-culture fit. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.

Dey, P.K., Petridis, N.E., Petridis, K., Malesios, C., Nixon, J.D. and Ghosh, S.K., 2018. Environmental management and corporate social responsibility practices of small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of cleaner production, 195, pp.687-702.

Khan, N., Korac?Kakabadse, N., Skouloudis, A. and Dimopoulos, A., 2019. Diversity in the workplace: An overview of disability employment disclosures among UK firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), pp.170-185.

Kucharska, W. and Bedford, D.A., 2019. Knowledge sharing and organizational culture dimensions: does job satisfaction matter?. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), pp.1-18.

Kucharska, W. and Kowalczyk, R., 2019. How to achieve sustainability?—Employee's point of view on company's culture and CSR practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), pp.453-467.

Li, J., Ren, L., Yao, S., Qiao, J., Mikalauskiene, A. and Streimikis, J., 2020. Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm competitiveness. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), pp.1621-1646.

Paiuc, D., 2021. The impact of cultural intelligence on multinational leadership: a semantic review. Management dynamics in the knowledge economy.

Posadzinska, I., Slupska, U. and Karaszewski, R., 2020. The attitudes and actions of the superior and the participative management style.

Powell, A., Galea, N., Salignac, F., Loosemore, M. and Chappell, L., 2018. Masculinity and workplace wellbeing in the Australian construction industry. Proc., Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.321-330.

Shaules, J., 2019. Edward Hall Ahead of His Time: Deep Culture, Intercultural Understanding, and Embodied Cognition. Intercultural Communication Education, 2(1), pp.1-19.

Wan, P., Chen, X. and Ke, Y., 2020. Does corporate integrity culture matter to corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, p.120877.

White, C.L. and Alkandari, K., 2019. The influence of culture and infrastructure on CSR and country image: The case of Kuwait. Public Relations Review, 45(3), p.101783.

Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J. and Andriukaitien?, R., 2018. Management Culture and corporate social responsibility. BoD–Books on Demand.

Websites, 2022, Uncertainty avoidance index of Australia , Available at: [Accessed on: 29th Novermber, 2022], (2022), How Hofstede & Trompenaars Models Of Cultural Dimensions Apply To Global Leadership, Available at: [Accessed on: 29th November, 2022], 2022, Uncertainty avoidance index of UK , Available at: [Accessed on: 29th Novermber, 2022]


35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*