Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour

Culture is defined by Matsumoto and Juang (2004) as a dynamic system of

explicit and implicit rules, established by groups in order to ensure their
survival, and involves attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behaviour. A
cultural dimension, however, is an aspect of cultures which can be compared
or measured relative to other cultures. Geert Hoefstede conducted the initial
study, known as the IBM Employee Correlation Study, which led to the
theorization of cultural dimensions (Hoefstede 1980).

The aim of Hoefstedes study was to identify different traits in behaviour
according to culture. 60,000 employees of a multinational firm, IBM,
participated in the study, whereby they were asked to fill in surveys about the
morale in the workplace. The study carried on for 10 years, and Hoefstede
carried out content analyses on the responses, focusing on key differences
between employees of different nationalities. The trends he identified within
the responses are known as dimensions.

Hoefstede concluded with four dimensions: Individualism vs. Collectivism
(how much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group
memberships), Masculinity vs. Femininity (the value placed on traditionally
male or female values), Power Distance (how much the less powerful
members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally) and Uncertainty Avoidance (how much members of a
society are anxious about the unknown, and as a consequence, attempt to cope
with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty). Michael Bond and his colleagues
also found a fifth dimension which Hoefstede later incorporated into his
framework as Long term vs. short term orientation (the importance attached
by a society to the future versus the past and present).

Focusing on the Individualism vs. Collectivism dimension, this relates to the
relationship between an individual and a group. Citizens of individualist
countries (such as the USA, UK and most western countries) tend to see
themselves as individuals and value their needs over others they are
expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose
their own affiliations. Furthermore, the ties between individuals in
individualistic cultures are loose and voluntary; often, close bonds are only
extended to immediate family. Therefore, typical values for them are freedom,
personal space and personal time.

On the other hand, citizens of collectivist countries (Japan, India, China and
most eastern countries) are tied to social groups such as extended family,
religious groups, or a town. In collectivist cultures, individuals are expected to
make decisions that benefit the community, rather than simply themselves,
and individuals strive to create a harmonious society.

Supporting studies for the Individualism vs. Collectivism cultural dimension
include one carried out by Whiting (1979). He conducted a case study of
Americans on Japanese baseball teams and found that the team often
ostracized Americans who tried to do their best. This is because those who
put the team above individual progress were seen as more valuable players.

Additionally, Bond and Smith carried out a meta-analysis of 133 conformity
studies based on the Asch paradigm. The studies were carried out in 17
countries; 8 of which adopted individualistic cultures, and 9 of which had
collectivist cultures. The meta-analysis showed that more conformity was
obtained in collectivistic countries like the Fiji Islands, Hong Kong and Brazil
than in individualistic countries like the USA, the UK or France.
Bond and Smiths findings are consistent with the way the
individualism/collectivism dimension was portrayed earlier, as members of
collectivistic countries value conformity because it promotes supportive group
relationships and reduces conflicts (Punetha et al. 1987).

Wei et al. (2001) further conducted a survey on the influence of collectivism
vs. individualism on conflict resolution styles. A group of 600 managers
working in companies in Singapore, and were divided into groups of
Americans working in multinational companies, and Asians working in local
and multinational companies. The responses of the survey were used to find
possible relationships between scores on cultural dimension and conflict
resolution style, and it was found that the higher on the scale of individualist
dimension, the more likely the manager was to adopt a dominating conflict
resolution style, whereas Asian managers tried to avoid conflicting
resolutions. Additionally, it was found that American managers who had
worked in Singapore for several years adopted a more Asian conflict
resolution style.

Although the research supported Hoefstedes theory to some extent, it was
concluded that resolution styles were too complex, and that differences could
not be the cause of cultural dimensions alone. In fact, they found that
differences within the groups of Asian managers were larger than those
between two different cultures. This may be due to the fact that the
researchers used a large cross-representative sample of managers in
Singapore, however, this allows the results to be generalized and adds to its
validity.

Another cultural dimension that has an impact on behaviour is the Long term
vs. short term orientation, which focuses on time consciousness. In long term
oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future,
such as persistence, perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented
societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the
present, such as normative statements, immediate stability, protecting ones
own self, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

Burnam et al (1975) conducted a study whereby 62 undergraduates were
classified on their level of time-consciousness. The results indicated that those
who were highly time-conscious worked on a task at near maximum capacity,
irrespective of the presence or absence of a time deadline. Those with low
time-consciousness, by contrast, exerted more effort only when the task had
an explicit deadline.

Similarly, Basset (2004) conducted meta-analysis on responses received by 15
Chinese students and 15 Australian students based on how they would solve
workplace conflicts according to their own cultures. It was found that Chinese
students were more concerned about interpersonal relationships and strived
to solve problems by enhancing relationships through dinner and gifts.
However, Australian students believed that company policies and procedures
would dictate the way in which employees would behave, and that traditions
would hold no value as employees would continue to cause conflict if they felt
that they were being treated unfairly. Batonda and Perry (2002) justify this by
arguing that people of Western cultures favour action based approaches, while
those of Eastern cultures favour process based approaches.

While Hoefstedes study on cultural dimensions is supported by further
surveys and studies, it is important to note that these cultural differences
describe averages or tendencies, and not characteristics of individuals.
Additionally, the initial survey may not have been the best way of learning of
peoples true attitudes and values.
Nations are typically composed of many subcultures, which may vary on both
ethnic and religious grounds, making the population very diverse and
therefore difficult to generalize or make a clear statement about.