FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING CULTURAL DIFFRENCES

FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING CULTURAL DIFFRENCESPRESENTED BY:-ANKIT PAULMBA- IBCONTENTS Definition. Three Cultures Model. Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions Theory. Trompeenars Riding the Waves of Culture. Kluckhohn And Strodtbecks Cultural Orientations Framework. References.

DEFINITION Culture: has been defined as the source of ties that bind members of societies through an elusive socially constructed constellation consisting of such things as practices, competencies, ideas, schemas, symbols, values, norms, institutions, goals, constitutive rules, artifacts, and modifications of the physical environmentTHREE CULTURES MODELDeveloped by Gardenswartz, Rowe, Digh, and Bennett, posits three cultural influences at work in corporations: personal culture, national culture, and organizational culture.Personal culture is the shared combination of an individuals traits, skills, and personality formed within the context of his or her ethnic, racial, familial, and educational environments. Every one has a unique personal culture.National Culture is a shared understanding that comes from the combination of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors that have provided for the foundation of heritage of a country.Corporate culture is a combination of widely shared institutional beliefs, values and organizations guiding philosophy that is usually stated in its vision, mission and value statements.CULTURE IN ORGANIZATIONS

HOFSTEDES CULTURAL DIMENSIONS THEORYIt is a framework forcross-cultural communication.It describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived fromfactor analysis.It is one of the first theories which could be used to explain cultural differences.Dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed:Individualism-collectivismUncertainty avoidancePower distance (strength of social hierarchy)Masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation)Long-term orientation vs. short term orientationIndulgenceversusrestraint

This theory is based on a largesurvey study regarding national values differences across the worldwide subsidiaries of IBM.Hofstede compared the answers of 117,000 IBM matched employees samples on the same attitude survey in differentcountries.The research is extended it to 50 countries and 3 regions.In 1991,Michael Harris Bondand colleagues conducted a study among students in 23 countries, using a survey instrument developed with Chinese employees and managers.The results from this study led Hofstede to add a new fifth dimension to his model: long term orientation.OutcomesPower distance index shows very high scores for Latin and Asian countries, African areas and the Arab world. On the other hand Anglo and Germanic countries have a lower power distance.Regarding the individualism index, there is a clear gap between developed and Western countries on one hand, and less developed and eastern countries on the other. North America and Europe can be considered as individualistic with relatively high scores: for example, 80 for Canada and Hungary. In contrast, Asia, Africa and Latin America have strong collectivistic values.Uncertainty avoidance scores are the highest in Latin American countries, Southern and Eastern Europe countries including German speaking countries, and Japan. They are lower for Anglo, Nordic, and Chinese culture countries.Masculinity is extremely low in Nordic countries: Norway scores 8 and Sweden only 5. In contrast, Masculinity is very high in Japan (95), and in European countries like Hungary, Austria and Switzerland influenced by German culture.High long term orientation scores are typically found in East Asia, with China having 118, Hong Kong 96 and Japan 88. They are moderate in Eastern and Western Europe, and low in the Anglo countries, the Muslim world, Africa and in Latin America.Indulgence scores are highest in Latin America, parts of Africa, the Anglo world and Nordic Europe; restraint is mostly found in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Muslim world.Trompeenars: Riding the Waves of Culture Fons Trompenaars, who over 15 years and with 50,000 managers across the world has developed this model.He built this model around three key principles :Our Relationship to Others.Relationship to others.Relationship to environment.

KLUCKHOHN AND STRODTBECKS CULTURAL ORIENTATIONS FRAMEWORKCulture is defined as the pattern of variations within a society or more specifically, as the pattern of deep-level values and assumptions associated with societal effectiveness, shared by an interacting group of people.Cultural Orientations in This Model:1. Nature of humansGood/Evil: The basic nature of people is essentially good (lower score) or evil (higher score).Changeable/Unchangeable: The basic nature of humans is changeable (higher score) from good to evil or vice versa, or not changeable (lower score).2. Relationships among peopleIndividual: Our primary responsibility is to and for ourselves as individuals, and next for our immediate families.Collective: Our primary responsibility is to and for a larger extended group of people, such as an extended family or society.Hierarchical: Power and responsibility are naturally unequally distributed throughout society; those higher in the hierarchy have power over and responsibility for those lower.3. Relation to broad environmentMastery: We should control, direct and change the environment around us.Subjugation: We should not try to change the basic direction of the broader environment around us, and we should allow ourselves to be influenced by a larger natural or supernatural element.Harmony: We should strive to maintain a balance among the elements of the environment, including ourselves.4. ActivityDoing: People should continually engage in activity to accomplish tangible tasks.Thinking: People should consider all aspects of a situation carefully and rationally before taking action.Being: People should be spontaneous, and do everything in its own time.5. TimePast: Our decision criteria should be guided mostly by tradition.Present: Our decision criteria should be guided mostly by immediate needs and circumstances.Future: Our decision criteria should be guided by predicted long term future needs and circumstances.6. SpacePublic: The space around someone belongs to everyone and may be used by everyone.Private: The space around someone belongs to that person and cannot be used by anyone else without permission.OutcomeTypical respondents of the United States and Canadian samples are among the most individualistic, while the average respondents from Mexico and Taiwan are among the least individualistic.Canadian and American respondents in this study preferred hierarchy less than Mexican and Taiwanese ones did.Mexican, Dutch, and Taiwanese respondents in our samples ranked hierarchy lower than both individualism and collectivism, all three preferred hierarchy more than either the Canadians or Americans did.With respect to Activity, the average respondent from Canada preferred doing to thinking; respondents from Mexico and Taiwan preferred thinking to doing; and Dutch and American respondents ranked the two equally.Referenceswww.imd.orgwww.sagepub.comwww.agents2change.typepad.comwww.research-methodology.netwww.volunteeralberta.ab.ca