Contemplating cultural variability

Hofstede and Hall - two names that I shall not forget after last week’s class on cultural variability. Using the dimensions as proposed by the two gentlemen, we got a deeper insight into how different cultures may vary from each other. These include: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, reliance on context and a myriad of other aspects of culture. To understand the implications of these findings on cross-cultural communication, I will venture into raising examples for each (of which some were mentioned by the video we watched at the end of class as well as during class discussion).

Power distance – In high power distance cultures, it is critical that an individual is conscious of the hierarchies that may exist in his/her counterparty’s culture. For example, when dealing with such bosses, it would be encouraged that the individual (that is, employee) address and speak to the boss with a certain degree of respect.

Individualism – Where a culture is collectivistic in nature, the individual should be careful when giving extra attention to persons within an in-group. For example, praising or scolding an employee in front of the rest of the employees should be avoided.

Masculinity – In this dimension, most of the traits that define masculinity of a culture should not be extrapolated to an individual (such as assertiveness, less caring, etcetera) as they are highly dependent on individual’s personality. For culture-wide norms, however, we can look at how clearly defined roles for different genders are and the degree of interaction between the genders. Therefore, in a masculine culture, an individual of a particular sex should be more understanding when communicating with the opposite sex. For example, if a female counterparty does not look at you in the eye when she responds to you, it may not mean that they are being rude but that they are conforming to their cultural norms.
Uncertainty avoidance – An individual facing high uncertainty avoidance cultures should be prepared to handle great resistance when proposing new ideas, etcetera. Thus, in such situations, an individual may need to stress more on the benefits of the change and take more steps to reduce the reluctance of the other parties involved.

Reliance on context – When dealing with a counterparty who comes from a culture that is different in its degree of reliance on context, an individual should be more understanding of differences that might prevail in the communication. For example, a person from high-context culture may have to supply more information to someone who is not within the same culture. On the flipside, an low-context-culture individual should be wary of nonverbal (or context) cues when interacting with parties who relies more on context.

Of course, like many other notions dealing with culture, an individual must be cautious of overgeneralisation and since Hofstede’s study focused on people in working environments, an additional pinch of salt must be taken when the ideas are considered in a non-work-related setting. Otherwise, these findings serve as a generally good guideline for issues that people should be aware of in cross-cultural communications.