Aspects of Different Cultures Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Measurements - Report Example

Cultural Diversity Culture refers to common patterns of interactions and behavior, affective understanding and cognitive constructions that are learnt through socialization. It is the collective functioning of the society that distinguishes its members from others. Culture is made up of language, norms, values, social collections, attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies (Storey 9). These elements of culture create a bond between its members. All over the world, every culture is different from another. While some values are upheld in one culture, they may be disregarded in another culture. This paper will focus on demonstrating the different aspects of different cultures based on Hofstede and GLOBE measurements. This study involves interviewing three respondents from different cultures on their views concerning power distance, individualism, and uncertainty aversion. These respondents were selected from the Latin America (particularly Mexico), South East Asia (Philippines), and Confucian Asia (China). The rationale for picking these respondents was based on their availability for the interview due to their high population in the US. All respondents were female, in their late twenties who are currently living or working in the US. The Hofstede and GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) standards of measuring cultural differences were applied. The Hofstede method applies five dimensions, which include Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Long Term Orientation and Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede 389). On the other hand, GLOBE applies the following dimensions Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional Collectivism, In-group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation. The study focused on measuring the parameters that are common in both models. POWER DISTANCE In Hofstede model, the power distance index indicates the extent to which subordinates acknowledge and expect that power should be distributed equally. It is a measure of the distance between the authority and its subject (Hofstede 390). According to GLOBE, power distances measures how a certain community accepts power and authority. The Mexican respondent indicated that, in their culture, they accept the authority as it is a paternalistic society. She further indicated that the leader ought to be benevolent to their subordinates who in turn respect the authority figure. In the Hofstede scale, Mexico scored 81 while they ranked high on the GLOBE cultural model. The Philippine indicated that, in their community, they accepted and respected the authority. However, they scored 94 according to the Hofstede scale as the political and economic powers were confined to the elite few in the society. This creates an enormous gap between the rich and power as well as the authority and the subordinates. According to the GLOBE scale, South East Asia ranks high because although they accept the authority in the society they acknowledge that there is inequality in the society. China scored high on the Hofstede power index as the society considerably accepts authority (Hofstede 390). The community put considerable emphasis on the family and the good of the society. However, the society is based on a monarchy government where power is inherited by a specific family. The other members of the community are expected to respect the authority. This is also consistent with the GLOBE ranking index as Confucian Asia ranks high. UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE According to Hofstede model, this indicates how the society deals with uncertainty. It is a measure of how the society handles uncertain situations. On the other hand, GLOBE model defines uncertainty avoidance as how the society depends on social rules such as norms and beliefs to buffer the uncertainty in the future. The Mexican respondent explained that the members of their society are risk averse and do not like uncertainty. She further indicated that, until a certain method is proven, Mexicans are less likely to adopt it. In addition, Mexicans are resistant to change preferring to follow their traditional methods. According to Hofstede scale, Mexico scored 82 while ranking high on the GLOBE scale (Hofstede 395). On the contrary, the Philippine respondent explained that members of her culture are risk takers. Although the Filipinos love the comfort and security, they will not hesitate to take risks if the outcome is beneficial. They even have a term for doing something for which the individual is uncertain “bahala na” which means “come what may”. According to the Hofstede score, South East Asia scored 44 while it ranks in the middle on the GLOBE ranking. According to the Hofstede scale Confucius Asia scored 30 on uncertainty avoidance index. The respondent explained that the Chinese are significant risk takers. This is because the country experiences several hardships forcing the Chinese people to take significant risks in order to survive. She further attributed this attitude to the fact that the Chinese are widely distributed in the world in an effort to seek better pastures to improve their lives. Moreover, China is ranked low in the GLOBE model. INDIVIDUALISM According to Hofstede model, this index is made up of two components: collectivist and individualist side. In the collectivist society, the members are integrated by strong bonds into groups and family. Each member of the society is closely knit to their family and social groups. On the other hand, in the individualist community the ties are loose with every member expected to look after themselves. However in GLOBE model, individualism is defined as the degree members of a society express loyalty, pride and cohesiveness on their families (Hofstede 396). The Mexican respondent explained that Mexico is an example of a collectivist society. She said that Mexicans are not individualist and take pride in belonging to a certain group. She attributed this attitude to the fact that Mexicans in the US always identify themselves with a particular group, for example, the gangs. This is consistent with the Hofstede score, where the Latin Americans score poorly as they are a collectivist society. Furthermore, Mexicans rank fourth in the GLOBE ranking culture model following the Confucian Asia and South East Asian communities. The Philippine respondent also illustrated how the Filipinos are a collectivist society. She attributed this attitude to the fact that they tend to live in one place as seen in the US. This is because they try to seek solace in their countrymen in a foreign country that is far from theirs. She further elaborated that although they live in cluster groups they at times do not know each other. This is the reason why the Philippines scored 30 on the Hofstede score and ranked third on the GLOBE ranking. The Chinese respondent explained that they were a hopeful and collectivist society who were willing themselves for the betterment of their family and society (Hofstede 392). This explains why some of the members in the Chinese community sacrifice themselves to become slaves so as to provide for their families. The respondent further explained that since China was ruled by a communist government, they were likely to be a collectivist society. In conclusion, culture is passed on from one person to another through interaction and socialization (Storey 20). All over the world, different societies have different cultures. In the study using Hofstede and GLOBE measurements, different communities have different scores related to their attributes. A compelling example is the difference between the Mexican group and the Chinese society in the uncertainty avoidance principle. Unlike the Mexicans, the Chinese society is risk takers and is not afraid of the future uncertainty. Works Cited Hofstede, Geert. “Organizing for cultural diversity.” European Management Journal Dec. 1989: 389-396. Print. Storey, John. An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print. Read More