Culture Analysis Using the Hofstede and GLOBE Dimensions Cultural Model - Report Example

Culture Analysis I. Introduction Values, attitudes and behaviors are relative depending on the prevailing culture and norm of any given society. This is demonstrated in this paper where three respondents were interviewed about their perspective relating to power distance, uncertainty aversion and individualism. The exercise revealed certain values that are not important in the US such as collectivism but is more important in other societies such as those in Asia and Middle East. The resource person of this paper comes from the cultural cluster of Latin America (particularly Mexico), South East Asia (Philippines) and Confucian Asia (China). The rationale for picking the respondents is due to their high availability for interview given their number in the US. II. Examining cultural differences using the Hofstede and GLOBE dimensions cultural model There will be two standard measurement of cultural differences that will be used in this paper, the Hofstede and GLOBE. Hoftstede will be used more for the emphasis of comparison because it assigns a scale ranging from 0 to 100 on the five global dimension. Whereas GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) merely rank the importance of a certain cultural dimension according to a regional cluster. The five dimensions of Hofstede are Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-Term Orientation. GLOBE model includes nine dimensions which are Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Humane Orientation. This paper will tackle the dimensions which are covered by both cultural model measurements. a. Power distance Power distance in GLOBE model is how a certain community accepts authority, power differences attached to it and Hoefstede defines power distance as how accepting a certain culture on the inequality of its society. Mexico (Latin America Cluster) When the respondent was asked how they view authority, the respondent mentioned that Mexicans are generally accepting of authority because it is a paternalistic society. The father or a leader is expected to be benevolent among its subordinates and it is incumbent upon the subordinates to follow the authority figure. Compared with Hoefstede scale, this perspective is consistent because Mexico scored 81 on the scale and ranking high on GLOBE cultural model. Philippines (South East Asia) The Philippines share some trait with Mexico it being a colony of Spain for more than 300 years. It scored higher on Hoefstede scale (94) indicating the greater disparity of power inequality. When the respondent was asked why this is so, the respondent replied that in addition to sharing the Latino’s acceptanc eof authority, the economic and political power in the country is confined to an elite few which explains the huge power distance between the haves and have nots and those who are powerful and powerless. Globe ranking model also places South East Asian countries to be high on power distance indicating that South East Asians generally accepts that there is inequality in their society. China (Confucian Asia) China also scored high in Hoefstede measurement (80) and the respondent elaborated that as a society, they put emphasis on the general good of society and family and it follows that they should accept authority to serve that end. The respondent also added that Chinese history is replete with dynasty which operates similar to a monarchy where the subjects are expected to be subservient to their rulers. This is also validated by GLOBE ranking where Confucian Asia is high on power distance. b. Uncertainty avoidance Uncertainty avoidance has to do with how society deals with the undertainty of the future and life and general in Hofstede model. The Globe ranking system however defines it as how society depends on societal rules such as norms and traditions to buffer the uncertainty of the future. Mexico (Latin America cluster) The respondent manifested that Mexicans in general are risk averse and does not like uncertainties. According to the respondent, until a certain method is proven, Mexicans are less likely to try it and would prefer the “old ways”. The respondent also added that generally Mexicans are also resistant to change especially if the present system is already comfortable. This point of view coincided with Hoefstede and GLOBE ranking with Mexico scoring 82 on the Hoftstede scale. Philippines (South East Asian cluster) While scoring somewhere in the middle of the Hofstede scale (44), the respondent believes that Filipinos are generally risk takers. They even have a word for it for doing something uncertain but would rather do it anyway which is “bahala na” meaning “come what may”. The respondent explained that while they love comfort and security as a people, they would not hesitate to take chances if it will make things better. China (Confucius Asia) Of the three respondents interviewed, China scored the lowest on uncertainty avoidance which is 30 indicating that Chinese are generally risk takers. The respondent recounted that perhaps this due to the hardship in mainland China before that Chinese people has to go somewhere in order to survive. This explains why there are Chinese anywhere in the world in their effort to find a better pasture to improve their lives. c. Individualism Individualism is the interdependence of society according to Hofstede model. In GLOBE scale however, this is being defined as “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, andcohesiveness in their organizations or families”. Mexico (Latin America cluster) The respondent maintained that Mexicans are never individualist and takes pride in belonging to certain group or even just being a Mexican. The respondent explained that a typical Mexican usually identifies with his or her group, not necessarily family, which can be seen in Mexican communities and gangs in the US. This perspective is consistent with Hoefstede scale with Latin Americans scoring low on individualism indicating that they are a collectivist society. Mexicans also rank fourth in the Globe ranking cultural model next Confucian Asia and South East Asian clusters. Philippines (South East Asian cluster) The respondent illustrated how collectivist Filipinos are when they tend to gather around especially in a foreign place which is observable in the US. The respondent explained that the Filipino groups which we typically see to close barely knew each other. They grouped themselves to find solace among their “kababayan” (countrymen) in a country that is far from theirs. Indeed this is true because Philippines scored a low of 30 in Hofstede individualism and third highest in GLOBE ranking. China (Confucian Asia cluster) The respondent explained that Chinese people are hopefully collectivist people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family and society. This explains why there are child and slave workers in China because of this trait to sacrifice themselves so that their family may be better. Also, the respondent explained that China being a communist government, is more predisposed to become a collectivist society. Read More