Discussion Board Reply

Trompenaar’s dimension analysis of the management culture is an area that requires a better understanding of cultural differences. This comparison involves Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the United States of America. From the various dimension Denmark is the most different company. Its figures show that it is the only company that falls into particularism dimension. As a matter of fact, the particularism dimension is oriented due to the strong relationships it finds its self in (Mead & Andrews, 2009). Sweden is a bit different from Norway and Denmark in that they are more effective than neutral in the A v. N dimension. With this difference in dimension, it is true to say that Sweden is more affectionate and it is more secure of showing it publicly while Norway and Denmark opt to control their emotion and they are not secure of showing them publicly (Mead & Andrews, 2009). The U S is seen to be more specific in culture than any other country as explained by the S v. D.

There are many differences in Trompenaar’s model of culture as well as similarities. Geographically Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are so close making it possible to have ideals similarities. These countries are identical in I v. C and S v. D. Norway Denmark and Sweden are considered to be diffuse from the S v. D dimension. These countries have large and wide private spheres and very small public spheres hence these countries are considered to be an individualist (Medeiros, 2010). By these countries being considered individualist means that they focus on themselves and their immediate families and less focus on the communities. From the dimension the united state falls into the same category as the Sweden, and Norway. From the seven dimensions United States and Denmark match in I v. C dimension.

 

Reference

Mead, R., & Andrews, T. G. (2009). International Management. Chichester, England: Wiley-      Blackwell.

Medeiros, E. R. (2010). Old vs recent cross-border cooperation: Portugal-Spain and Norway-       Sweden Medeiros Old vs recent cross-border cooperation. Area, 42(4), 434-443.     doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00940.x