4.11 Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour

4.11 Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour

A dimension of culture is an aspect of culture that can be measured relative to other cultures. The conceptual framework “cultural dimensions” was suggested by Hofstede (1980) in his survey of 88000 IBM employees working in 66 countries across the world. Hofstede argues that differences in behaviour are a consequence of culture. Culture should be seen as a collective phenomenon that may distinguish one group from another on specific dimensions. Culture is seen as ‘mental programming’ or ‘mental software’. An individual’s mental software will determine the way the person acts and thinks and the mental software is resistant to change. Unlearning what is once learned and internalized is very difficult. According to Hofstede, understanding the influence of cultural dimensions on human behaviour can facilitate international understanding and communication

Collectivism and individualism

This relations to the relationship between the individual and the group. In individualist countries, people tend to see themselves as individuals who must take care of themselves. Ties between individuals are loose and voluntary. Typical values are freedom, personal challenge, and personal time. In collectivist countries, the individual is tied to social groups such as families or clans throughout their lifetime. This extended social group provides safety in return for loyalty.

Wei et al. (2001) survey on collectivism vs. individualism on conflict resolution styles

Aim: To investigate the extent to which the dimension of individualism vs. collectivism influenced conflict resolution communication styles.

Procedure: A group of 600 managers working in companies in Singapore were randomly selected for this survey. The participants were divided into four groups: Japanese, Americans, Chinese Singaporeans working in multinational companies and Chinese Singaporeans working in local companies. Questionnaires and correlational analysis were used to find possible relationships between scores on cultural dimension and conflict resolution style.

Results: Generally, the higher the score in the individualist dimension, the more likely the manager was to adopt a dominating conflict resolution style. American managers (individualist dimension) were generally more likely to adopt a dominating conflict resolution style and less likely to adopt an avoiding conflict resolution style than Asian managers. Asian managers did not always adopt an avoidant conflict resolution style as predicted by the collectivism-individualism dimension. In some cases, American managers who had been in Singapore several years had adopted a more Asian conflict resolution style.

Discussion of results: The collectivism vs. individualism dimension in relation to conflict resolution styles was only somewhat confirmed. The researchers conclude that conflict resolution styles are complex and cannot be reduced to cultural dimensions alone. For example, differences found within the groups of Asian managers was larger than between groups.

Evaluation: The survey used a large and representative cross-cultural sample of managers in Singapore so the results can be generalized. The study relies on self-reports so there may be issues of reliability of the data but overall the results are reliable.

Long-term orientation and short-term orientation (Hofstede and Bond 1988)

This relates to a cultural dimension found in Asian countries. China was not included in Hofstede’s original study but Hofstede and Bond (1988) suggested this dimension based on the Confucian work dynamism. Values such as persistence, loyalty, trustworthiness, respect for tradition, and conversation of ‘face’ are central to this dimension.

Basset (2004) qualitative research to compare perception conflict resolution in Australian and Chinese students.

Aim: To investigate differences in Chinese and Australian students’ perception of conflict resolution in relation to (1) the collectivist vs. individualist dimension and (2) long-term vs. short-term orientation.

Procedure: The investigation was a qualitative cross-cultural study. The students were bachelor students of business and management. They were asked to analyse a potential conflict situation between a Japanese supervisor and a Canadian visiting assistant teacher. The same question was answered by 30 students (15 Chinese and 15 Australian), each from their own cultural perspective: “Discuss how this conflict might be resolved in China/Australia”.

Results: Generally, the data confirmed Hofstede’s individualist and collectivist dimensions but not all data could be explained by this. As for long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation, the Chinese data confirmed the importance of this dimension in understanding behaviour.

China	Australia
The Chinese are concerned about face-saving and interpersonal relationships. They want to solve problems and enhance relationships at a dinner table. It is important to pay attention to a relationship; perhaps inviting the person to dinner or offering gifts could help the relationship.	Policies and procedures dictate the way employees and the organization operates rather than culture and tradition. Issues such as saving face are not important since parties will push for arbitration and mediation if they feel that they are being treated unfairly.

Implications of research like this for negotiations with Chinese partners

Friendship is important. Banquets are seen as a relationship building exercise. Gifts act as expression of friendships and symbols of hope for good future business. Guanxi is a network of relationships built by an individual through the exchange of gifts and favours to attain mutual benefits. This practice is based on the Confucian work ethics. Batonda and Perry (2002) argue that the consequence of Guanxi for doing business in China is that the Chinese favour a process-oriented approach where Westerners tend to favour a more action-based approach.