o Hall’s High- and Low-Context

o The GLOBE CulturalTaxonomy

Cultural Taxonomy
Power Distance
Use of Covert and Overt Messages
Uncertainty Avoidance
Importance of Ingroups and
In-Group Collectivism
Outgroups
Institutional Collectivism
Orientation to Time
Gender Egalitarianism
a Hofstede’s Cuhural Taxonomy
Assertiveness
Power Distance
Performance Orientation
Uncertainty Avoidance
Future Orientation
Individualism versus Collectivism Humane Orientation
Masculinity versus Femininity Comparing the GLOBE
Long-Term versus Short-Term Time Dimensions
Orientation
Cultural Taxonomies and
Indulgence versus Restraint
Intercultural Competence
Monumentalism versus Self-
Effacement Summary
Comparing Hofstede’s Dimensions

EEYTERMS
high-context cu.Itures 109
low-context cu.Itures 109
power distance 114
uncertainty avoidance 116
individualism-collectivism 117
masculinity-femininity 118
time-orientation 120
indulgence versus restraint
in-group collectivism 127
institutional collectivism 127
gender egalitarianism 128
assertiveness 12é
performance orientation130
future orientation 130
humane orientation 131
cultural practices 138
120
cultural values 13g
 mg flic piyviu.us. cÎiapLur,. Wc prov,idcd aii u,vervie w. uf the paf Lcin3 :t1iäf uiideslic- all
cultures. We described the nature of cultural patterns and the importance of beliefs,
uesi riörrns, and social pràctïces in. helpin:g. cultures .to cop'e wiih. pr.öblëms. Wc now
to.eus on.:speüifi.c coîiceptüal. iäxonömies'thät: arë useful foï un:dërstariding 'cultùral
différences.
We have .chosen th •e different but related :taxono.mies to:. describe variations in cul-
tural patterris. The.first mas. developed by Edward Hall, Who ñdted that cultures differ in
ihé .extent to which their priinary inessa}ie patterns are:.high content or lew content:: The
sdüond..déiciibes..the idé.is of:.Geert .Hdfstedé, who identifies seven dim:dnsio.us...alóng
which. cultures vary. The.third, by a.g.ro.up of researchers.:collectively.known as the GLOBE
team,. incorporates many of.the previously deseríbed ideas,.the.group identifies nine. dimen-
sións-.of culture:and differentiates cultural practicas (whát:people: aífy do) from. cultural
redes (ideally, what p.eoplñ.shoukí do):
As ju .read. the desciripfid.us:ó.f. cultural .patterns.by Hall, 'Hofstede, and the.GLOiiE
researchers, we caution you to. rememb.er. three. poirrts. First, there: ii nfithing. sacred
about these.approaches and'the interna:l categories they employ: Each approach takes the
whóle ó'f cultural..patterris.(beliefs, values; noims, and social practicei) and.-dividen tliern
in dilferent. ways.
Second,:.the parts of e.ash of:the systezris.are in:terxelated. Wé begin .the. description of
each system at an arbitraril chosen point, presupposing other. parts of the:system that
have.not°yet been dáscribed. Cultural pattern are u ddrs'tandab1e do.t in.isolatioñ but as..a
unique.Whold.
Firially; individual inemberi of.a cultura mayvary greatly'frorn.the pattern .that ü typical
of:.that. culture. Thereforei as..lou.study.these.approaches to .ciiltural .patterns, we encourage
you.to make some j.udgments about host your ovm culture fits. into the pattern..Then,.as.you
pláce: it within.the.pattern,.also.:try-tó discern. hovr you, as..an. individual, fit/into tire.patterns
describen Similarly, as yoü learn:aboút. dther cultural p.átterns, please:r.emeinbei. that á spe-
.cific-.pe.rmn.may .or may nót be .a. typical repiesentative:pf tbat cultura. As: you study yo.ur
oro..cultural patterns:and.thoseof other cultures, you.improv.e:the:knowledge component o'f
iniercultural competence.

ŁUŁÏURÊ connec
 CH ã P.T £’R 5 Cültural Paoërns.and Cömmuriication:7axcInórnie?:

Hall’s High- and Low-Context Cultural Taxonomy

Edward T. Hall, whose writinğs about the relationship between iulțure and ‹ximrnunicàtion
are well. ktiown, organizes cultures by the:amnunt of informätion impliéd @ the setting öi
context of the communication itself, regardless of the specific words țhat are spoken.1 Hall
argues that every human being is faced with so many perceptual stimuli—sights, sounds,
smells, tastes, and bodily sensatio that it is impossible to pay attention to them all.
Therefore, one of the functions of culture is to provide.a scrøen bëtween the: person and all
ofthö se Stimuli to indicate what perœptions to nõ tice and how to interpret them. Hall’s ap-
proach is compatible with the other approaches discussed in this'chapter. Where it differs is
in .the importance it'places on the role .of context.
According to Hall, cultures differ on a continuum that rangts from high to low con-
text. High-context cultures prefer to use high-context messages ,in which most of the
meaniñ g ís either implied by the physical setting or presumed to be part of the individ-
ual’s irvternalized beliefsi values, nö ims;. and iocial .practices; very little is provided in the
coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. Examples of high-context cultures
.includé. Japaü êse, :African.AmerieaÖ , Mexican,!and Lätinö . Low ntexł cultures prefer to.
use low-context m.eisages, in which thë majority of the information is vetted in the
explicit code.. Low-mntext..cultures include German,. Swedish, European American, :and
English.
:smpie: mpR •fuø-œnwcom nicacon :ier›•uons i tax p œ i»›
long-term relationship betwœn two people who are often able to iń terpret even the
slightest gesture ö r the briefëst comment. The message dó es not need tó be stated :exp1ic-
idy because it is mrried in the shared understandings about the relationship.
A simple example of low-context communication is now experienced by more and
more people as they interact with mpiputers. Por computers to "understand" a message,
everystatement must be .precise. Many computers will not accept or respond to instructions
that do nö i have every spaće, períod, letter, and humber in precisely the right locétiõ n. The
messağ ë must be overt and very explicit.
Hdl'ś desiriptiö ö of h.igh-: and low-context cultures is .based õ n .the..idea”that some.
cultures have a preponderance of messages that are high context, others have messages
that are mostly low context,. and yet ofhersthave a mixture of both..Hall dso describes.
other characteristics of high- and low-context cultures, which reveal the beliëh, values,
normś,'änd socialpraétiees ö f the cultural system. These charäćteristiü s include thê .use of
covert or overt messages the importance .of ingroups and outgroups, and the culture’s
orientation to time.

Use of Covert and Overt Messages

110 PART T¥f0 Cultural Differences in Communication

precisely and specifically in the words that people use as they try to communicate
with others.
Another way to think about the difference between high- and low-context cultures is
to imagine something with which you are very familiar, such as repairing a car, cooking,
sewing, or playing a particular sport. When you talk about that activity with someone else
who is very familiar with it, you will probably be less explicit and instead use a more suc-
cinct set of verbal and nonverbal messages. You will talk in a verbal shorthand that does
not require you to be specific and precise about every aspect of the ideas that you are
expressing, because the others will know what you mean without their specific presenta-
tion. However, if you talk to someone who does not know very much about the activity,
you will have to explain more, be more precise and specific, and provide more back-
ground information.
In a high-context culture, much more is taken for granted and assumed to be shared,
and consequently the overwhelming preponderance of messages are coded in such a way
that they do not need to be explicitly and verbally transmitted. Instead, the demands of
the situation and the shared meanings among the interactants mean that the preferred
interpretation of the messages is already knovm.
Consider, as an example of high-context messages, an event that occurred in
Indonesia. A young couple met, fell in love, and wanted to. marry. She was from a wealthy
and well-connected family, whereas he was from a family Of more modest means, but the

Like the rest of my family, I have no idea how old I am; I can only guess. A baby who is born in my
country has little guarantee of being alive one year later, so the concept of tracking birthdays does
not retain the same importance.When I was a child, we lived without artificial time constructions of
schedules, clocks, and calendars. Instead, we lived by the seasons and the sun, planning our moves
around our need for rain, planning our day around the span of daylight available. We told time by
using the sun. If my shadow was on the west side, it was morning; when it moved directly under-
neath me, it was noon. When my shadow crossed to the other side, It was afternoon. As the day
grew longer, so did my shadow—my cue to start heading home befbre darL
When we got up in the morning, we decided what we’d do that day, then didthat task the best
we could until we finished or the sky grew too dark fbr us to see. There was no such notion ofget-
ting up and having your day all planned out for you. In New Yorlc, people frequently whip out their
datebooks and ask,“Are you free for lunch on thefourteenth—or what about the fifteenth7“ I re-
spond with“Why don’t you call me the day befbre you want to meet up?“ No mafter how many times
I write down appointments, I can’t get used to the idea. When I finn came to London, I was mystified
by the connection between people staring at their wrist, then crying,"l’ve got to dashl" I felt like
everyone was rushing everywhere, every action was timed. In Africa there was no hurry, no stress.
African time is very, very slow, very calm. If you say,°I‘II see you tomorrow around noon*that means
about fburor five oclocb
 CHA PTE R 5 Culturä l Patterns and Cornmuni«atIon:Taxoriornies 111

young couple did not regard this differencc as a problem. So they shared their happy
news with their respective iämilies; ihö rtly thereafter, the young man’s parents were in-
vited to the woman's home to socialize and to .meet her parents. The social octasion was
very cordial; the conversation was pleasänt, and the two sets of pBrents were •Y gracious
toward one another. At the appropriate time, the woman’s parents served tinsi gering
(fried rice) and nittiö utnn (star fruit), two foods that are very cpmmon in Indonesia.
Pinally, ..after an appropriate inte-rval, the young. man*s parents thanked their. hosts. and
left. Throughout the entire episode, the topic of the wedding was never broached.
However, everyone. knew that the redding would never occur. After all, nosi gering
doesn't ,go with remf›uniti, the high-context and face-saving message that the woman’s
parents communicated, and that the man’s parents charly understood, Pas that they dis-
approved of the marriage.
The differcnce between high-context and low-context cultural styles is illustrated in
the following diiilogue between a European American (low-context culture) and a
Malaysian (high-coritext culture); the Malaysian’s message is revealed only by implica-
tion. Both people in the .dialogue teach at a .community college in the United States, and
the Malaysian’s objective in this conversatiö n is to have the European American drive him
ofïcainpus for lunch because the Malaysian does not have a car.

Malaysian:
Can I ask :yoit .a question?
Furopeati Arrieriron:
Yes, of course.
Do you ktiow what time .it

Might you have a little soup

left in the pot?
What? I don’t understand.
(becoming more explicit
since the colleague . is not
ketting the point): I will be
on campus teaching until
nine o’clock'tonight, a very
long day for any person, let
alone s hungry onel
(finally .ketting the point):
Would you like me to drive
you to a restaurant off cam.-
pus so you can have lunch?
What .a very good.. idea .you
have!

Reactions in high-context cultures are likely

■ A-Japan.ese.tea cerernony is an example..oi..a high- .to be reservedi whereas reactions. in low-context
context messag.e’. Nearly every' rnoven1ent,.gesÏure, cultures are frequently vdry explicit and :readily
and action has.significance ta.those who:understaad ob,servab1e..It is..dasy tö. uoderstand"why 1is.is:'so:
the Ôde"beiLig useô. Izt. high:-content cu1tutes, :an. Îlziporta.nt p.nrpasë
 in co.mmuńicating. is tõ prornó.tê .:and sùstaiii harmony amönğ the inteiäitänts.
Urico.nstrained reactiops .could 'threaten the faœ or social esteem of other3: In 1öw-
context cultures, however, :an importa.rit purpose in communicating- is. to:::cofivey exaCt
meariing. Explicit messages:help:to ach:ieve thii.goal: If messages need tö. be expİicit, so.
will,.people’s:,.reäctions. Everi. .when thê. message is: undërstood, a person. cannot ass.umé
.that: thê me.anings .are cleäŁ in :the :äbser.ce of verbal m essäge3 ..e.oded spe.cifić.ally. to.
.provide:feedback.

Importan.ce of Ingroups.and Outgroups

:who. ü ñd.t .Bëcause s.o much. öf the .meäning; of.rnessdğês is.: embeddêô.in thë rules..äùd
rituals.: of sítuaÖóns it ü easy to .tell whö. is acting...acco.rding. to :thoie norms. As:there are
fixed and specific expectations for behaviors, deviatioris are easy to detect.
Ano.ther .distinc'tion concerns.the emphasis .placed.::ön the indiüdual irr.üontïas.ï to.
thë.grõup.as.:a.soürce..ö.f self-.identity: In a hlgh-coùtext.culture,.the commitment between
people. is very strong fiüd dëep,.and responsibilitY tö Óthers takes:precedenië over respon-
sibility to. oneself Loyalties to families..and the..members. öf one’i social:and work groups
.are long-lastiri:g.a:nd unchanging. This degree of loyalty differs from 'thät föund in ä low-
context: culture; in which: the. böñdi betwêen. pe'ople are: very fiägüê::and .the extent of invol\
mnent .and.:cöinrnitment to.1oüg-ter:n relationships is lower.

Orientation to Time
The final distinguíshablê:characteristic of high- and İow-context cultures is their ortenta-
Ödn to tíine. In. tliê.former, timd:is viewed as.mdre op:en, less structured; more rè3po.nerve
to:.the immediäte ñeedi of. peö.plc,.:ärid lêss.,subject:to ^exterfial..gö.als..and co.nstraints. In
İow-context cultured, time- is high.ly organized;. in par.t .because of the a'dditional.:energy
required to.:understand the mesșa:ges of others. Łow-context:ciiltures are almost.forced to
pa7 mÖre a'ttentioñ to. timë.in.order'to complete the wörk dfliving; withtöthers:
As Täble. 5.1. iní1icates,..Edward Halls .pÌace.mint.of::cultures o.ñto a contiiuium:.that is
.an hored b.y preferënces for .high-context inesiäges and. low-context.messageș. ólfeis ä

..+.+ h»mctrl.. »flx -» .d +.I ..

High-Context Cuhures
Low-Context Cultures
Covert and impÌicic
°Overt.aod explicit
Messages intemaİízed
łÿłessages.ğlaiüIy codeó
Much nonverbal coding
Details veibaİjzed
Reactio.as reserved.
Reactions on.thë s.úrface
Distinct ingroups and.outgroups
Flexible ingroups and outgroaps. Fragi|
-Strong interpersonal bands
e |riterp.ersö.oal bonds
Commitrńent. high
,ColȚimìtmë/rit low
Ti me.open..and flexiblë
Tìmë hiğhly örğanized
 CHA PT£:R. S" Cult ufal.Patterns aod.Cornm„uni«atiÖn:TaxÖnornies 113

waÿ'to.'understarid:o:they variations'.in iultaral patterns.:.A high-.content.^culture'ch:öosëi to

usé covërt:and.. irriplieit messager::thät rëly hëavily on n'örvve,rbal:code systems. In.a..high.-
.content culture, the. . gro.up is very ¡mp.oitant, as are traditions; and memö.ers. of the
ingroup are easily recogriizecL Time: ii.1ess stiuetured añd: more iësponsive to. people’s
needs: Low-:cddtext cultures. aÄtcharaüteiized by the. opposite...attributes: rnessäges ärë
explicit. and dëpëriderr.t. on ver:bal: codes ,grp.up rriërfibëïshipä change: ïapid1yi:..iririövatiöri
ise:valu¢‹i,:and tim¢ .ti.highly!structüred.

Hofstede’s Cul.tu.rslTaxonomy
G.eert Hofstede’s. impriessive..sttidies ö f cultuial diffé reÜ ces iii value oiientationi cifFeé an-
other.appröach. to uri‹ierstanding the range of ciiltural differeric,es 2 Hofitede's äpproäch
is based:.ö.n. the asserti n that. peöpld. cärry.merital programs, ..ör ‘software of the. mind,°
that::are..developéd during childhoö‹i and ar.e..ieinföiüéd. by their culture. These :rnerita1
programs coritain the ideas öf ä culture..und are expresse.d through:its: dominant values.
To identify the princi.pal .values öf dilferent culturesi Höfstede initiall.y surveyed more
than 100,000iIBM ömplöyees in:.Se Üf- öne :co.untries, .an:d hé häs sübseq:uerilly S.road-
enäd his analysis. to inclüde many öthers.
Thro.ugh:theoreti.cal.reasöning; and statistical..analyses, Höiktedd’s e.arty Research iden-
fified:.five: dimens'ions:aiorig whiéh dominant .patterns of a eult e:can be ordered: power
distan ; uncertainty avoidan.cc, mdividualism venus.. collectivism, aiasculmitY yver’us
feminmity, and lorrg-.teirn verius/ihort-.term orientation..to time. Recentl.'y. two additional
dimensions have:. bgeri added: :induIgence versus iestraint. and rnoriumeritalism versus
'self*effacement, Hofstede’s work. p.roviétes an excé[lent.:syn:theiis. Hof the..re1atiofiships be*
tween ciiltural values and social.behaviors:’

CULTURE conne
Pôwër Distance
Ôrie.of the basic concerts.of all cultures:is.the issue..öf htunan inequalit.y. Contrary to the
claim.iñ the U:i. fiêclàration of::.Indëp.eñ:dence that "all merr:.are .cieated equaÿ’.,al1peöple
in'a.euiia e do not han equl 1e*n« ar status or: ioo«i p:ower.:o er ding on the cuiture,
.iöème .pëo.ple might b.e regarded as...superio;r to others because..of. theirtwealth,.age, geöder,
education, physical. st.rengt1i, .birth. order, p.ersonal achie.sements, :fämily background,
occtipationi or.a wide variety.of other characteristics.
Cuit reà ai o dirièr'in thë exteni to which: the view sur itatus ineqi äiiiies ai goöd
or.bu, ri t:or wng; j t or unjoi; and nv or u»av. mat.ri,:aii cuite et::ha*e pa iiiu-
far yalue oiientations ab:o.ut the.äppropriatëness. or importance of status..öiffererices:and
social hièrarchiës:'Thus power distan ce refers. to the degree to which the:culture believes
t1ia:t institütiörial ärid örgarrizat(ö nal. p.o.wcr ihöuld be diitributed:unëqùally and the dêüi-.
sidns of the p.oiwer h.olders should be'cha1lengëd ör.ace.ëpted.
Cultures tha:t. prefer..small pöwer .dis¡anœ sach as. Austria; Deômark, Israel,.and
New Zealand—believe..in the: importance öf minimizing. social or class inequalities;
qüês'tioning or . cha1lerigiïig¡ äuth'ority' figures; reduciñg h.ierärchical. orgàriizatiorial
s:truütures; ärid.using; pd,wer öfily fdr legitiriiate purp.osês.. Conv.ersely, cùlture's. thät pre-
fer .large p.ower distan.ce such..äs::those:.in.Aräb .co.untriei,..Guatemäla, Maläysia, and
the: Philippin bêlieve thai e.aüh person has a ri htful and protected.plaœ.in the so-
cial order, that the actions o'f authoilties should not be challenged or queitioned, that
liierarchy::änd:inëqüalïty.axe äppröpriate an.d bëñeficiäli äiid"that tho.se Sth.iociäÏ:stä-
tüs .lïavë a. light...tö. .use :.their pöwer for. wh.ätevër. purp.o.ses. and. in whatever. ways they
deem desirable.
The. consequences. of.the degree of p.ower distance that.:a culture prefere are e*ident
in..tam ñ’ ¥ customs,. the. telätionships between studeùts and. teachers, organ.izational
prac- tices, änd in öther o.f.söiial lifè. Ev.ë'ä .thë.language systems ‹in :high''power-distance
 and

■ In the Philippines, large power ‹distance is shuwn in this traditional gesture of greeting
by a granddaughter to her ‹ randi1\other.

In the business world, managers in high power-distance cultures are likely to prefer
an autocratic or centralized decision-making style, whereas subordinates in these cultures
expect and want to be closely supervised. Alternatively, managers in low power-distance
cultures prefer a consultative or participative decision-making style, and their subordi-
nates expect a great deal of autonomy and independence as they do their work.
European Americans tend to have a relatively low power distance, though it is by no
means exceptionally low. However, when European Americans communicate with people
from cultures that value a relativdy large power distance, problems related to differences
in expectations are likely For example, European American exchange students in a South
Aniciican or Asian culture sometimes have di&cu1t y adapting to a world in which people
are expected to do as they are told without questioning the reasons for the requests.
Conversely, exchange students visiting the United States from high power-distance cul-
tures sometimes feel uneasy because they expect their teachers to direct and supervise
their work closely, but they may also have been taught that it would be rude and impolite
to ask for the kinds of information that might allow them to be more successful.

Uncertainty Avoidance
Another concern of all cultures is how they will adapt to changes and cope with uncer-
tainties. The future will always be unknown in some respects. This unpredictability and
the resultant tinxiety that inevitably occurs are basic in human experience.
 Cultutei differ. .i.ñ. the eatërit to:which .:they prefet. and .can: tolëtätê ainbigüit.y. x rid,
therefore; in-the.meanș-they.selest for cop:ing with change: Thus, all cultures differ in.
their perceived need. to be..chärigeäble and adaptable: Hofstede refers...to these varia-.
trout as: thë:: ùn cêrtaintÿ. avöidance .dimen'sioä, thê extent td..whićh"the culttvre 'feels
threatened by äinbiguo.us, u;icertain .iituatiöris.:and tries:to avö.id'them. by êitablishing
more.::str uctur.e.
At one extreme on th.is .dimension.are cultures such .as those .of.Denr ark, Jämaicai
Ireland, and..Singäporë, which are all. low in i2ÜcEftifÍÜtY ay.o.idance arid..thêrefoie haTe a
.high tdleran ë.för uniertainty:and ambiguity.. Thë}r'bëlieve.i.n niiùimizinğ.thé:.Üuiabêr öf
rules and. rituals that .go.vern: .so;ciäl conduct .ănd haman behavior. in.:accepting. and en-
couraging diss.ent among c.ultural m.embers, in:.tolerating:people. who:behave..in.ways.that
are:considered.socially.°deviant, and in taking:riaks and.trying new. thitigs..Conwrse1yj the
cultures. :df .Grëece, Guatemala, Portugal, and. Urug'uay. are amöùg ”those that piefer to
avoid ufi.certainty as a c.ul:turäl value. They desire o.r even .demand consensüi äbout s.öci-
etal goals, and they dn:..nö.t like to .tolerate dissent or allow deviation in the bihaviors of
cultural. members.. They try to ensure certainty .and security through an extensive. set of
rulês;. rêgulaÕóris; and. rittïalsi
Cultürés must. co.pe W.ïth. the .rieêd to creäte. ä Wo.rld thär. ïs .mo.re certain.:.and pië-
dictable; and .they:do. só b.y inventing rules aad rituaR to constrain. human b.ehaviö.ii.
Becaus.e members of high uncertainty-avoidance c.ultures .tend :to be worried..äbout the
futuiei they häve'high levels of anxiety and.-are h.ighly zesistan t'to cliange: They regard the
uncertaińties öf life:.as::ä ćöritiníiöus ïhre.ät .thät rnuit b.e overcome. Cónsêqueñtiy, these
cultures. develö.p .many.rules..to control söcial behaviors, :äùd they öften ado.p.t elaborate
rituals::and religio.us:practices that have a precise.form or sequence..
Members of low uncertainty-avoidance cultures tend:to Itve day to:day, and they acre
C
sén$ :Íccep.tabl dpian g , nd indivi% ächìeve ea ' gardê as
b:eneÎicíal. Coniequently,. these cultured..need few r:ules. tö control. sn:cial b:ehäviors, and
they are unlikely.to.ado.p.I religious äitualsithat re.q:uire: precise..patterns..of:enactment.
Differêncm. in level of uncertainty avoidance can result .in unexpected problems in.in.
tërcultural.cõmmüniiatiöri:. F..or instance, Eurdp,ëan .Am.ericàns teöd”tö..have à rnoÖèrately
low level öf uncertainty avoidarrce. When.thëëe U:S. Americans co.inmunicate With sornë-
Due fro.m a high uncertainty-avoidance:.culture; such as those in Japan or France; they
are Ïikely to be seen as. :too nonconforming and unconventional, and they :may vìew
ïheir Japanese. or French coun.terparts as rigid and overly eoätrolled. Coriversd y when
these, U:S. Amèricans::.cõmmüniiate°with..sörnëdrie from an ,extremely 1öw unüeïtain.ty.-
'avõidanœ. culture, sitch as the:Irish.. or Swedesi they.are likely to bev.iewed as.too structured
and uncompromising,.whereas they may perceive their Irish: or Swedish counterparts. as
too 'willing:to accept dissent.

Individualism versus Collectivism

 CHA PT£ R 5 ” Cuh'ural.Pattems and Comrnu"ni¢:ätIon:TaxÔnÖmies

I UTURÊ conneck

way.of relating. that strikes a.balanœ between showing concern for themselves and :con-
cern för others.
Cultures dilfer in: thë::exterit tö which individual aütöriomy is rëgarded..fa*örably °r
unfavorably. Thus, cultiires vary in..their teùdeÖcy to.:encouragë.peö.ple to b.e unique .and
independent or eonförming :and intërdependent: Hofitede. .refers to thèse variati.o.ns as
the.: individualism—collectivism dimensioni. the degree:.to w.hich a culture relies on and
hds °al1egiarice tö. thë sëlf ö.:r.'the. group:
Highly indiviÔtlalistic culture's; such as the dö.ininant cultures. in Austria, Belgium,
the.NetherÎ'ands,.and the U.nited States, be1ieve.that p.eop1e are.o.nlysup.p.osed to take care.
of.themselves an.d perhaps their..immediate farnilies. In inöividualist cultures, the :auton-
örn öf the individuel is..päraixiöunt..Key words used to,..irivoke .this cu1tur'al pàtterri in-
clude indeperi!dencëi privacy,: sel/ änd the all-.important. I. Decisiöni are .base.d .on.what.'is.
.goöd:.för thë individüäl, öot.for the:. grpup,. b:ecauie the person is.. th:ë .prlrnary source of
motivation. Similarlyi a..judgmen t ab.out what is right .or wrong. can..b.e made onty from
the point öf view ofeaüh individtial.
Cultures iuch..as thöse iÖ Gtiätemala; indonesia,' Pakistan, arid'Wesi Afiica value à
collectivist: öriêntaÖori. They'ieq.uirë:an .absÔlùte loyalty to the gröüp, thöugii..the relevant
:group...might b:e.. pas :var.ied as :the nüclei.r familyi. thë: exterided .family, ä castei oi a jati
(a.sub.grouping o.f a caste). In .collectivist cultures, decisions that.juxtapose .the.benefits to
the individtial and the benëfits ..to the .group are always based oô what ii best for the
,gro.up; aüd tliê: groups ïo. which a person! b:eldng;i arë the:.inost iinpor:taÔt social units. In
turn, the gröup !is expe.cted tö lo:ök: out for.and take .rare of its individaal:rnerabers.
Co;nseqiient1y,: collë.ctiyist.cultures. b.elieve. in :öbligatiôns:to :the:gmup,.depen:dence:öf the
individuaÎ .on oiganizatiöns.and institutions,. a ‘wë” consciousness, and.an.emphasis .on
belönging.
Hüge cultural. differences can be explained by differences : ön :the. .individualism—
collectivijm dimension. We have.already noted:that collectivistic.cultures. tend to be,group-
o.riented.. A related characteristic is that they.typically impoee a ver.y 'large. psychological
distance bëtween th'o.së who :are: niembers. of their. grötip' (thë irigro.up) and thöse .whö
are not (the..otitgroup). Iug.rötip:. rnëmbers..die:reqtiiied to. have un@uestiöfiiüg.löyaltyi
whereas öutgroup .aiernbers are. regarde.d as. alinost:.incoñsequential. Cönversely, merribers öf
indi- vidualistic:cultures do not perceive a large chasm between'irigroup and outgmup
members; ingroup rnembers:are not.as clnsei büt oiitgrniïp. members are not as distant.
Scholars.süch as. Harry Triandis believe that the individualism-cnlleüiivisai/dimëüsiorL is
by far th'e rnöit
118..

importaiit ättribute thät distinguishês ööe.üultuië

from .ano.th thus; it: has :been extensive!Y rp-
seamhe‹I
Individùalist. cultufei train thëir: rnërnb.:ëïs
to speak out:.äs .'ä me.äns/of resolviÖg difficulties,
;I{L. 8sSrO:0m!S .:8tuden:ts.:ftom individualiitic‹cul*
.tures. are likeÎy..to ask questions öf' the .teacher:
i'tfidents: from collëctivistiü cultures :.ärê not.
Siaiilailÿ, pëöple: frorñ individüalistic cultures
are ..more liluily. thaö those .from collë'ctivistic
cultures to use confrontational..strategies when
dealing viith interpersonàl probleme; those with
a collectivistic .orientätiön are , likel7 to use
avoidancë, third-party interrnëdiariei, or othër
face-saving.: techniques. Indeed, a cotnmön
maxi.m among Europe an. Americans, who. are
hightY indfvidualistic; is .th:aï "the squeäky wh.eel
gets the greasê" (stiggesting; that drie should
iakei rioise i.rr !ördër: to ben rewaided); .the for:iê-
spond.ing maxim. .a:niong the Japanesei who are
somewhat collectivistici. is °.the nail that sticks

Masculinité versus Femininity

■ The prûcmiridnt stctüs of the iùdividüal,' and thd,indi - .A fourth coricerù of àll cul.turesi .and for which
vidual's. reg eakfree aie ë?iïraI .chaïacteris-
they rnus't all fiôd s.olütions, pertaini.:to:gefider ex-:
ties ofthe culturâl pattèrns.of Euröpean: Ameriaûs
:and. others.
pêctätiöns and the extërit:!to which pêö prefer
.achievement .and assertiveness or nurturance..and
social suppoit. Ho°fstede refers to these variations as the inasculinity-femininity
dimen- sion. This ílimension indicates the- deg;ree to which à culture values
"masculine: .behàv-: ió.rs,.iüch as.assèftiyeneis.andethe:.acquisifion of:iwealth, or. femirvine"
behaviors, 5uch às caring.for others.:arid'the.quality o.flife..
At one: extreme :are::.masculine. cultures such .as :those:: in. Austiia,. Italyi Japan, .and
Mexicoi which .bel.ieve in achievemerit :and ambition. In this .viewi. people ahould be
judged. on .their.p.ërförrnaricei and::thösë Who achieve hävê°the rig.ht to°displäy'thë .mater-
ral.goö:ds t1iat.they. acquire'd. The.pëö.ple in rriasculinë cultures, also:.b.e1ieve.in:ostentätiö.lis
manliness,.and very:specifie. behaviörs aüd.proÔucts are'associate.d with.appropriate.:ma1e
behavior.
At th öihêr .extrërn'e .aie':fëminiùe cultüres stich as thösê of :Chile; Pörttigal;
SWë.dêô, äùd Thäiland, which believê lêss..iii external achievenieriis äôd shu.ws of' m ari-
.liness and more:in. the impor.tance of life choicei: ihat:impio.ve .intr.insic asp.ecti. of'the
quality of life, .such as service to others :and sympathy for the unfor.tunate. People
:iri°these feixiiriine cultures are aÏsö likely to ptëfer equälity betweën the iexes, .less
120 PART TW 0 Culturai Differencës in Communlùation

developed by scholars from Rutope or the United

States who necessarily brought to their work an
implicit set of assumptions and categories about
the types of culturd values they would likely find.
His finie-orientation dimension is based on the
work of Michael H. Bond, a Canadian who has
.lived in Asia for the .past .thifty years and who as-
sembled a large team of researchers from Höng
Kong and Taiwan to develop and .administer. a
Chinese Value Surv#y to university students
around the world.5
The truie-Orientation dimension. refef8 tO 8
person’s point öf reJèrence about life and ivork
Cultures that promote a long-terrn orientation to-
ward life admire persistance, thriftiness, and
humility. Linguistic and sœial distincfions between
elder and younger éblings are common, and detèrred
gratification of needs is widely acœpted. Connersely,
cultures with ashort-term orientation toward ihang-
ing events liave an expœtaôon of quick rèsults
föllowirig oneâ actions.‘ The Chinese, for exemple,
typieally have..a .long-terni time orientation—note
the tœdency to mart time in gr-long innements,
as)n.theYeir ofthe Dragpn or the Yœir ofthe Dog—
whereas Europeans typically have a short-term time
orientation and aggregate time .in month-long inter-.
■ Thë hejab, or h”eod scart is worn by rnàny Muslim vals (such as Aries, Gemini, Pièces, orAquarius).
wöitieh as a stätement of thelr tult\iraI val.uès.

Induigence versus Restreint

Recently Hofstede has included two additional dimensions to those previously destribed.
Based on recent research, including ideas from Middle Eastern, Nordic: and Eastern
European perspectivei, Ho.htede.has added thë dimensions of indiilgenœ versus restraint
and monumentalism versus self*eff«cemen:t.
The indulgence'versus restreint dimension:.juxtapoies hedo.nism. with.self-.discipline.
Cultures high on indulgenœ encourage .pleasure, enjoyment, spending, consumption,
sexual gratificationi and general merrirnent. Alternätively, cultures ..high on restraint
en:coùrage thê..control ö.f:sñch hëdonistic gratificatioris, ärid.the p1easiiies::and erijoyment
.associäted.wïth.lëisure activiti% ar.e°discouiäged.

Monumeritalism versus Self-Effacemezit

Cultures high. on monumentaiism encourage people to be..like the monuments or statues

 t HA PT.£ R 5 Cultural Patterüs.and Cornrnurilcadün:Taonornles 121

upstanding, stable, and resolute. Alternatively, cultures high on self-effacement encourage

humilité, .0exibility, ädaptatiön..tö the: situatiört,: and:feeling;.comförtable ab.öut lifes para-
doxe and inconsistencies.As Michael Minlæv suggests, those.from self-effeœment cultiues
adápt rolatively easily to.'foreigo erivirnnirients because\théir selves are fluid and4lexi-
ble, are: not overly proud of their cultural identity, and do .not insist on retalning their
cultural heritage. [Conv.errely,} p.eóple frorrr .monumentalist .iuliures. inay .consider
cultüra1 adaptaiidn a iort of treúsoni because they.are tnore. ptbud df whó they. are,
and subscribe to. the view that some .sdf attributes, such ar valúes and beliefs, muit
r.emáin :immutable. [For :exae:iplé,] it. máy be p.ossible [for someon'e] to be.:a goDd meat-
eating vegetarian Hindu, but there is no ouch thing as. a decent pork*eating
Muelim.. A virtuous woirisn cannot believe in wearing a headscarf in Cáiro while
w.al:king bareheaded.in Paris.:Yoú'must afaintain the sarne kind of noéal integrity. and
itnbilitJ acioss all. situations. ®

Cdmpeiing Hofstedes Dimensions

Hofstede’s foundational work has been widely cited and appropriately praised for its
importance, clarity, straightforwardness, simplicity, and excellence. Each of Hofstede’s
dimensions provides insights into the influence .of culture on the communication
process. Table 5.2, which clusters the various cultures by geographic region, summarizes

Powar Un<ercaiñty Individualism- I\4ascullnity- Tlfne

Culture Distance Avoidante Cellectlvism Femtrtinlty Orlentatlon

Anglo Low Low High Mediutn Lovv

Aüstralia -108 -66 195 58 -S3
Canada -94 -79 154: 1ó -8:1
England -113 -134 19.1 84 -74
I reland
New Zealand •S7
South Africa
U.S:A. -60
Latin Eurapé
France
Israéf
Italy
Malta
Portugal
Spain -TZ’ 812 ’33” -43’
IContinued)
122 P A R T T ñ 0 ‹?ultural Different es in ?omn iunication

Nordic Europe Low Low High

Denillark -l 91 -184 129 -IU
Finland -122 -32 83 -128
Norway -J 3 1 -70 J 08 -223
Sweden -13 J -159 J 16 -239 -46

Germanic Europe Low Medium High Low to High

Austria 223 14 49 153
Belgium 25 1J5 133 21
Germany - T 13 -7 99 64 -53
Luxemhourg -90 74 70 0
Netherlands -99 \ S4 -19 \ -7
Switzerland -1 1 7 -37 104 105

Eastern Euro pe Medium to High Medium to High Medium Low to High Low to Medium
Bulgaria 48 77 -US -53
CzechRepublic -\2 3l D2 S7 -1 17
Estonia -90 -28 70 -106
Greece 2 191 -34 37
Hungary -62 65 T54 201 14
Polanc) 39 UI 70 74 -50
Romania 140 98 -US 43
Russia 154 120 -17 -75
Slovakia 204 66 37 3J7 -29
Yugoslavia 76 90 -67 -1°i4

Latin America Medium Medium to High Low Low to High

Argentina -zI8 82 12 31
Brazil 43 39 -22 -6 67
Chile 16 82 -g4 -117
Colombia 34 56 -126 74
Costa Riva -113 82 118 -1S4
Ecuador 85 1 -147 68
Guatemala 163 145 -ISO -69
Jamaica -67 -227 -17 9S
Mexico 99 6S -SP 100
Panama 163 82 -134 -32
Peru 21 86 -J13 -43
El Salvador 30 IIS -107 -53
 CHA PT £ R 5 Cultural Patterns and Communication:Taxonomies 123

Power Uncer tainty Individual ism Mascul inity— Time

Cu ltute Distance Avoidance — Co Femininity Orientation
Ilectivism
Suriname 117 107 16 -69
Trinidad -58 -49 -113 42
Uruguay 7 141 -30 -64
Venezuela 99 39 -130 121

Sub-Saharan Africa Medium Low Low Low

East Africa 21 -62 -67 -48 -74
West Africa 80 -53 “97 -22 -106

Middle East Medium to High ñ4edium Medium Medium

Arab countries 94 6 -22 15
Morocco 48 6 12 15
Turkey 30 77 -26 —27

Southern Asia Medium to High Low to Medium Low Medium Low to High
Bangladesh 94 -28 -97 26 -22
India 80 -113 20 31 52
Indonesia BS -79 -122 -22
Iran -7 -32 -9 -38
Malaysia 204 -129 -72
Pakistan -21 14 -122 -163
Philippines 158 -96 74 -96
Thailand 21 -11 -97 -85 3S
Vietnam 48 -155 -53 119
Confucian Asia Medium to High Low to High Low to Medium Medium to High High
China 94 -155 -97 84 253
Hong Kong 39 -159 -76 37 176
Japan -2S 107 12 238 119
Singapore 66 -248 -97 -11 7
South Korea 2 77 1OS S9 102
Taiwan -7 10 -109 -27 144
A large positive score means that the culture Is high on that dimension. A Jarqe ne9•‹Ive score means that the culture Is low on
that dlmensicn. The average score Is zero. Ratings are standardized sCores, wkh the decimal polntomlt:ed.
Source: Based on data reported In Geert Hofstede, Cu/lures Consequences: Cornpor/hg Values, BehavDrs, Institutions, and Oiganizailons
across Nation:, 2nd ed. {Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 200a).

information for Hofstede’s first five dimensions. Every culture, of course, forms an
intricate and interrelated pattern; no one cultural dimension is sufficient to describe
or understand this complexity. For each dimension in the table, we have also provided
general descriptive labels (high, medium, low) to summarize the "typical” score of
124 PA R T T Ÿf 0 Cultural Differences in Communication

those cultures within each geographic region.

Note, however, that even cultures that are located
very near others are not entirely similar; this
range of scores underscores the importance of
being cautions when making generalizations
about cultures, even when they are within the
same regions of the world (e.g., Latin America or
the Middle East).
Cultures with siinilar configurations on
Hofstede’s dimensions would likely have similar
communication patterns, and cultures that are very
different fiom one another would probably behave
dissimilarly. Hofstede’s dimensions describe cultural
expectations for a range of social behaviors: powrr
distance refers to relationships with people higher
or lower in rank, uncertainty avoidance to people’s
search for truth and œrtainty, individualism—
collectivism to expected behaviors toward the group,
masrulini ty= feminiiiitf' to the expectations surround-
ing achievement and gender differences, rime orienta-
tion to people’s search for virtue and lasting ideals,
indu/genœ—resrrnintto psychological impulse control,
and monumentalism-self-effacement m pridefulness
and adaptabillty.

■ Time mana‹Iement, productivity, and cc›minu‹1ica-

tion all depencl oi› the ›arteriJs of oi›e s cult\›ie to
define their importance.

The GLOBE Cultural Taxonomy

A recent and very impressive study of differences in cultural patterns was conducted
by Robert J. House and his team of more than 170 investigators.9 This ongoing research
effort is called Project GLOBE, which is an acronym for Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness. To date, the team has collected information from
nearly 20,000 middle managers in 61 cultures. Individuals were asked to describe both
the cultural prncfices—what is, or what people actually do—and the cultural vniues-what
should be, or what is regarded as ideal—in their cultures.
The GLOBE research program builds on Hofnede’s work and on that of Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (which is described in the previous chapter). Nine dimensions are used to describe
the dominant patterns of a culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collec-
tivism, institutional collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, performance orienta-
tion, future orientation, and humane orientation. The first six GLOBE dimensions are based
on the work of Hofstede. The dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance are
identical in the two taxonomies. Hofstede's individualis collectivism dimension has been
separated into two GLOBE components: in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism.
 CH 4P TE R 5 Culturel.PBttëms and Cöñlrhuhicatta Taxo/›ornies

similarly; mm des baseulin:ty—ùmininity dimmsioù bas been divided têtu .two compo-
nents: gender egalitarianism and assertiwn The remaining three GIDBE dimensions are
based on the work of Kluckhoho and Strodtbeck The GLOBE’s performanœ orientation .di-
mension relates io Kluckhohn and Sttodtbet;k’s. world-.orientation diÔiermion. The futuxe
oitentatiox dimerisinn is basetl on Klnclêhohn and Strodtbeé k's mnœpt of time and the dis-
tinction among past-., present-, azid future d culture. TheGLOBEs humane orienta-
tion dimension is ancliored in Kluchhohn and Stmdtbeck’s view of human natum, npecially
their distinction .that cultures raa}r regard humans on .a continuum ranging .from .inheœnllp
good° to inheientty "bai’ Table S.2 provides the urne cultural dimeasinns studied in. the

P er“ The degree to which:mple belie 'e that Followers are (should be)
power should be stratified, IJnequally shared, ejçpected tg ¢›bey théir.IeadëTs
and concentrated at higñer levels ofan without quesnon.
organization or government.
Uncertainty The extent to which peaple strive to avoid Most peopla lead (should lead)
Avoidancq uncertainty by relying on so.cial norms, rules, highly structured lives with féw
rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate unexpected ments.
the unpredictability of Mure events.
Ïn-Gfoup The degree to which.people express pride; Employees féel (shoulc| feel}
Callectivism Ioyâ|ty, and œhasivqness îrrtheir familier, gteat loyal.ty toward this.
organization.
Inifitühonal The degree to which a. cLjlture’s institutional Leaders ênoouragè (should
Collectivism practices.encourage collective actions and enœuragej group loyalty even if
1e collective.disttibution of fesourcea indîviduàl goals suffer.
Gender The extent æ whÏch peopla rninimÏza gender Boys are.encouraged (should be
EgalîtàrianÎsm tale diffarerlces and gender diserimination enœ.uraged) more than girls. to
while promotîng gander equality. attain a higher education.

Assertiveness The degree to which mpieare assertive, People arè.[should beJ generally
confrontational, and aggressive in sc<'iaI dominam in their relutionships
relationships. wÎih each othar.
Performance The extent to which people enœurage.others Students aœ enœuraged (should
Orientation to irnprove their talk . ented performance be âncoLlfaged) to stTive for con-
and.excaI. tinuously. improved perfbrrrsar1cv
The degree to which people engage in Most people lime (should live] in
Orientation future-oriented behaviors such as planning, the present ratker than fbrthe
investing in the fLitu.re, and delaying futurg. (scored inversely)

Hu+Y'iane
Orientation The degree so which people encourage Mostpeojale are (shoold
be) others to.be f«ir, altruistic, Friendly, generally very toleranI.of.
generous, caring, àrid kirtd. mistakes.

Addptadhorn: fObertJ..House, Paul 1 Hdnrjes, Manager JaVldan, PeterV¥'. Dorfmani and VlplnGupta, ,:Ci//ru/4, / de/sh@ and
Orgar/lzarfoni TheG/OBESTug}'o/d2°5oc/etf8s (Thousand OaI‹s,€é: Sage, 2004}.
 PART T:V 0 Cultural Dîffererices in ComrnunicätiÒn

(mUoTUR t

GIDBE research, their cultural characteristics, and sampİe. ìtenis. The. information in thiș
table provides.a useful reference..guide to help.:you.understand the ÜIDBE ide.as.more.easüy.

Power Distance
As Hofitede siiggëstêd, one. of. thë basiü iöricerns. öf.. alt cultures is .:thd.. issuë of huñian
,inequality. ,Cultures..di'lfer in the..extent to: whİch.they view.statui inequalities as..desirable
.or. undesirable. Thus:power.:disfnnre refërs. to ,the. degree to which cultures believe.that so-
cial and political power.:shoulò be distributed disproportionatel.y, shared unequally, and
éoncenttäted.among.ä few töp dëcisiöri4nakers.
Hlgh.'..poor.er-.distärice.cultures, sućh as thóse..in France,¡Argeñti.ną, arid .Nigeria,.believe
.it ii very.appropriate tn-have differences...amöng..so.cial Classes.. Upward .mo.bility.Ö.*ght to.
be.limited, because. people already occupy their correct places in the.socia1hierarchy: The
deciñio.us.of the.p.ówerful.authorities should be rne't with unchallenged:accepiancé:
Conversely„Ïow..pöwer-distance.cultures. like thösé..in..Austiafiäi 'Denmarki.:.and Alb.ania
b.e1ieve it ii.important tn.minimize..or even eliminate söcial:c1asi.:differenœi. Upward möbil-
ity. is high,.because an equal opportunity-for each p.erson is an overiiding goal.
Questioning and challenginğ'ihë dëcísio.us.of à:uthoriÖës. is règardèd as each persori’s.‹duty
änd responsi- bility, as Ofily through such,..challenges.will söcial,and.political..power be usëd
welL

Unčertainty Aüoidarice
All cultures .need to. have some degree. of predictability in their social worlds: While
corri:plêt'e ćeìlainty can riéver b.e .achieved, humans could: nöt survive in ä world of
tdtal ärrd..chäotiü:uncertai.Òty. Thins. cultuies: vary .iri thé degreë. óf predićtability they
prefer: Thei.e. vaiíaüo.us' cöriśtitüte the úticürtni.nay nróidnnrü dirriërisiön, which’. is the
extent to which cultures feel thre.atened by the unpredictability of the future and
therefore try to establish more structure in the íòrm o'f ruies, reg.ulations; rituals,. and
rnñnilatory pràctic.cv.
 CH A P T £ R 5 ” Cuh'ural.Patterns arid Comrnu"ni¢:adon:TaxÒnDmîes 127

Cultures: such:.as thosê .in.,Swedea, switzerland, aùd Chinä'are reiauvelÿ high'ön uncer-
taințy ävõìdancë. ThereíÖre,.tlyey prëfer”to avoid.un:certainty as.a üultiual valüe, desig:ör even
demaôd consensus-about societal. goals, and.do not tolerate.dissent.or allöw devia'öon in the
behaviors of cultural members..Theytry to ensure certainty and securitythmugh an extenśive
set ofiriśtructioris about höWörië ought to behave. As a result, cultures that arè high.on -uncer-
tainty Avoidance.:prefei to develop many ways.to coritro1pe‹ipJës iocial JxÕaviors. These con-
trols exist as fomial regulañons and.as informal.rules about acœptable:coridhct,.and they also
inüude elaborate rituals and religious practices that have a preÒse form or.sequence.
Cultures such as those in Russia, Bolivia, and South Korea are relatively low on uncer-
taÎI1t.f"ilVOlÕdTlcë: They, there'fõrei häm à highër töl rance' for uncertairity and ainbiguit y
ärid are much möre cömfortahle witli the'unpredictability of life. Cönseqüently, rules and
regulations!'are kept:to, a minimum, dissent-is tolerated, and deviance is:,:more l'íkély to be
regarded as peculiar or:eccentric rather tharr as threatening.

in-Group Collectivism
Thë in-group collectivism dimënsiöri ü similar tö what Hofstede .calls .iiidividualism-
collectivism. Individualistic cultures: have Ïow in-gro.up .collectivism, whereas:co1lectivistie
cultures rate high on this.dimension.
in-group co.llertivism :reßëcts the dëgree'.to. Which people express. pridej.loyaltyi and
soLdarity with their. fairiily or similar..gro.up. In:cultures with high m-group collectivismi
individuals.talœ pride i:n and. define their sënse of:self—quite litera1l.y, their: ienie of who.
they ar in terms of'.their family or.similar group. That is, people's identities wìthin col-
lectivistic .cultures are. closely tied to their ingiöupsi and striirig:group memberships are
bõtji required afid dëiired.. As thë:Afric.an..iayirig:!suggests, in..colleciiviit culturës, I am.
beüäusë we::äreÜ RepresëÖtätive'. iultÜies that ..arë high õri in..-.group .cfillêcti:vism include
those.in Georgiai.Morocco; and the:Ph'ilip.pin.es.
In individualistic culture hosê ^that are low on in-group collecüvism the inde-
perid'erice and aùtdóomy öf .tlie iiidividüál: is. an overriding feature: People'š ideütitie's
within individualistic cultures ärè..separatë.:from; änd.perhaps.very distant from, th:use of
the. gm.up. Groiip ..rn'embership is often regar,dëd äs voluntary,. aôd..allegiance wlth one’s
ingrou ven with .one’s firm.’dy—.’is n ot expected to be. overly strong. included in thiș
category are such cultures as those in New Zealand, Finland, and the Netherlands.

Insčitutionãl Collectivism
Ano.ther.aspe.ct of the..d:imensiöin that Ho.fstedë:'called individualism—cõllêctirisrq is con-
cerned with the. basis upon .which decisinns are made. and the .grnup’s resources are. alİö-
cate‹Ł The dimenśinn:.of institutionuł coße.r.tivism re„pres.ê n'ts:t:he degree.tö ..w.hich ćidtures
stippo.rt; value,.and prefer to: distribü te rewards based'.on:group versus individual.intërests.
In cultures.. :that are high on inititutional collectivism, decisions that. juxtapose the
benefits. to iheegroup.with the berrefits.. to ihe individual neariy.always. base the decision.
on what is.best.for .the.group. Thus,. in .cult ures.like.those in Qa°tar..:and.Japan,..gróup..activ-
ities.are'typićally.:preferrêd to. individual actions:
Irr cultures,.that are:.low! on. insñtutionalscollectivism, decisions are based. nn what is
good for..the.individual, with little regard for the.group. Because:the.person is:the.:primary
°.For you,.It’s aII,äbout how yqa.ștand o.us Who.is the smartest;.the rIcheśt;.the best:..For us; lț’iall.
aboút blendlng In..Like:the patches.thaț make•u.p a.q.úIIt. Öne by one, we’re nót’rnuch to.look at. But
”pùt'cś'toğethër, äńd yo.!u‘ve ğÒt-somëthÏriğ.;woriôërfulž

.source of motivation, individual autonomy and actions tend to dominate. Thus, in Italy
and Greece, decisions are based on individual merit rather than on collective involvement.

Gandèr Egalitarianism
If you carefully read the description of Hoføtede’s masculinity—femininity dimension,
you will note that it combines two related attributes that, in the GIDBB project, høve been
separated into æparate dimensions: a..belief in equality between women and men and a pref-
erence for forceful assertiveness. The first of these attributes is called gender egalitø rienism
and is the extent to which a culture minimizes differences in gender expectations for men
venus women.
Cultures such øs those in Hungary and Poland, which are near the midpoint of the gon-
.der egalitarianism dimension, believe that gender equality is. preferre‹Ł that men and women

B Within Japanese cuhure, wl1ich-is h|gh an insțitùtional caIlę<Yivism, there is often a

very strong identification with one's wÓrk’group. Here,a group of Japanese business-
people collectively sLiare a group moment.
 CHA PT £ R 5 Cultural Patterns and Communication:Taxonomies 129

should be treated in the same way, and that unequal treatment solely bccause of one’s biolog-
ical sex or gender constitutes discrimination and should not occur. Conversely, cultures like
those in Austria and Egypt, which are low in gender egalitarianism, engage in unequai treat-
ment of nien and women. In this view, there are inherent differences between nten and
women, and thèse differences require dissimilar expectations and treatments. Rather than
regarding thèse fundaniental différences negatively, cultures that are low on gender egalitari-
anism view the divergence in gender roles and expectations as normal and natural.

Assertiveness
Another concern of all cultures, which also requires every culture to find a solution, per-
tains to the cultural preference for dominance and forcefulness or nurturance and social
support. This isssei ti veiiess dimension describes the extent to which t›eople value and
prefer tough aggressiveness or tender nonaggressiveness.
Cultures high on the assertiveness dimension value strength, succms, and taking the
ini- tiative. Competition is good, winning is desirable, and rewards should go to those who
are victoriouv People are encouraged to be competitive, visible, and successful.
Representative cultures indude those in Germany and Hong Kong.
Conversdy, cultures low on the assertiveness dimension value modesty, tenderness, warm
relationships, and cooperation. Competition is bad, a win—lose orientation is unacœptable,
and rewards should be shared among all. Nurturance and social support are important, as are
modesty, cooperation with others, and a sense of solidarité. Friendliness is much more impor-
tant than brillianm Typical of this orientation are the cultures in Kuwait and Thailan‹1
130 f*RT tW0 ’CutualDl%rences.nCemrnuncaDon

Performance Orientation
The degree to whith .a culture..encouragés and rewards people for their accomplishments
is called the performance orientation dimension. Depending on the culture, some peo-
ple tnight be regaided as superior to others because of who they a the “correct" family
background, age, gender, birth order, or school—whereas others. may acquire status based
on personàl achievements such as the amount of education, success in business, physical
strength,.occupation,.or a wide variety of other characteristics.
In high performance-oriented cultures, sucli as thoæ in Canada and Singapore, sta-
tue is based on what .a person has accomplished. Schooling and education are critical to
one’s success, people are expected to deoionstrate some initiative in work-related tasks,
and expectations are high. Conversely, in low performance-oriented cultures, like those in
Colombia and Guatemala, status is .based. on .who. you are. Attending the ”right" school is
important, as are family coiuiections, senio•gY, loyalty, and tradition.
An important composent of performance orientation is people's preferred reiationship .to
the natural and spiritualwodd.AsKluckhohn and Strœltbeck suggstedinthe precious chapter,
some cultum view nature ss something to be conquercd and mntrolled, others æe themselves
as lrving in harrnonywith nature, and still others view themælves as subjugated to nan
High performance-orienteÔ cultures assert their dominance over rature, and tliey try to
ahape the world to fit their needs. Getting the job done is far more important than maintain-
ing..elfective relationships, for wh'at reall7 matter s Ä: the task-reläted n•sults. that show wh'at
someone has accomplished. People in high performance-oriented cultures value competi-
tiveness, assertiveness, and achieveinent. In contrast, people in low perforipance-oriented
cultures feel more controlled by nature dmd want to lire in harmony with the natural and
spirituel environment. Maintaining effective relationships is more important in such cul-
tures than is. gettiñ g the job dong what matters mö at are cooperation, integrity, and loyalty.
Another important distinction related to performance orientation is Edward Hall’s
concept of low-content versus high-content messages, which we disciissed earlier. High
performance-oriented cultures tend to be low-content; they prefer tu. use messages that
are clear, explicit, and direct. They also have a monochronic approach to time, time is
valuable and limited, events are sequential, and punctuality is preferre‹I Conversely, low
performance-oriented cultures use high-content messages more ö ften; their intent is to
.avoid direct confrontations and mäintain harr ony in their relationships.

Future Orientation
Locating ones.woild in tim d thereby giving sWucture, coherence, and signibcance to
events•••-creates order and meaning in geop1e's lives. The extent to which ri culture plans
for forïhcoming .events .is the:-future orientation dimension. Related.süghtiy.to Holàtede’s
löng-term dimeniiön. and very dire.ctly to. Kltickhöhn änd..'Strodtbeck’s idêas on timê:ori-
entatiön (see Chaptes .4), -thë future. orientatiön dimension. .describes the degree to w.hich
cultures.adyocate long-term .planning and deferred gratification or the de.epiy:felt satisfac-
tion that cornes: from experiencing the aimple..pleasures.of the present moment.
Cultures differ, of course .in.:thë: extent:to which:they prefer :to foüus od thê future
rather than oÖ thë spontäneity of the present. Thosêe.high. in fïïture orientäÖoit, such as
Iran. and Hong Köng,.believethat.c.ürrerit..ple.asuies:are less imp.örmnt than future..b:enefits,
.so .they belie e in planning, self-tontml, and activities that have a-delayed impact:.Cultures
 CHA PTE R 5 Cultural Patterns.and Communlcà tlon:Tä xö ,nornles 131

"You dôn1understaad/'.she said.’You thlrik a w.oman.feels bad. Ifshë’s exchanged.forcows:or

money,.Büt if.ihere8:.no:exchan.ge.'she Îèels..worth. nothing. T"«ost my husband.ier.œws:.I.had:a good..
edùcàtÏOh from.ÏrIsh riuriiIri.fyIbârara.I speak Erigilsh and can rüri a ôüslnesfi Mÿ fafher ipent rùôney
ön..më; vvhÿ.give..mé.away For.n.ôtFiIng.7:ôürfamlfiës:.keep,âc'cô.ühts:ofwhät.girls co”sï.to..feed.änd.
c,Iôthë.and educaie,.ihät w.äy:they mari ëho:w a däugLîter.is.vaIuäbIe°tö. a •yoüog rnañ’sfämIîÿ. Yöu
wârit’a.hëäIthÿ;.ëducated brldë OU, j/ö,u pëy for Itl°

like those in Portugal and Venezuela are lowan future orientation and thus prefer to.enjoy
full y the. experiences currently under was; their like to live "in the moment" and are less
constrained by doubts about the past or concerds about the future.
People fro.m cultures tliat are hiJ;h in futu.re orientatiorv.want tn save.mo.ney:and other
resources. They believe in strategic .planning, and they value economic success. People
from cultures that are low in future orientation are more likely to spend now rather than
save .for later. .They view material and spiritual achievements as opposing goals, and they
prefer the latter.

Hümane Orientation
The final.GLOBE dimension, biimane orien:tation, refeis to t.tte.extent to which culturëi
,encourage and reward their members for being benevolent and compassionate toward
others or aie concerned with:self-interest.andself-gratifrcation.
Cultures high in humane orientation value expressions of kindness, generosity, Car-
ing, and compassion, and people who .express social support for others are admire‹£
Memb:ers of humane-ortented cultures aie expected tö help others financially änd eino-
tionfilly, to share information that others may need, to spend time with others, and to
offer êmpathy and lö ve. Represêntative Cultures incltide Zambia and lndonesta.
Cultures low in hü mane orientation value cö rrifort; pleasure, satiifsition, and per-
sonal enjoyment. People from low humane-orientation cultures are expected to confront
pt•rsonalprobleme by them»elves, and they are concerned .priaiarily with individual grät-
ification. ÿypical of this:orientation are the cultures: of Spain and white South Africa.

Co”mparing the GLOBE Dimensions

As we süggested.. in..:Chapter 4, cultura1 .pattè:rns. repiesent .a univmsal iocial.:choice' that
must be made by each culture::and that is learned fiom the family and throughout.the so-
cial institutioris of'a cultüie: in the. degrèe to .which. children.aïe eneouraged to have. their
own .desüds:and ixiotivatiorià, in. the:sdlidarity and unity.expeéted in the .famil ;.in°the role
ino.dels that aie.presented,:and thro:ugh.o.üt the‹range .óf messages that are:c:›riveyed.
Table i.4. provides. information on each. of:the GIDBE .primers for:sixty-one.co.un-
tries. Table. 5.5 .provides this information for each of the GLOBE. :values. The regional
Anglo
Australia - I.02 0:38. -1.33 õ.10 - I .ö 1 o.c S o.39
.Cariada (English) -Û.84 0.69 - 1 J.1 0.32 -.0@ ł -0.28 I .2B 0.90 0.83
England -0.06 0.8.1 -ł .45 0o5 -069 u.00 9 -0 JS. -0.78
Ireland a.2J -0.0 1 0.92 -2.ł 3 -0.63 , 0dS 1.B1
New Zealaii‹ł 4.67 0.98 -2.01 ł .ł5. -2.IN -2.01 0:92 I .So 0.48
South Africa (whiter -0.04 0.12 0.ee ca9 - ł .9b 1.23 fl.ó 1 0D3 1.26
U sA ïWl ite) -0.z0 ”0.02 - 1.22 -0.12 - 1.78 1.10 0.65 0.96 0.16
Latin Europe
France 1.18 0.44 -0.67 0.12 -0.97 0.79 ’0.24 033 1.46
Israel -1.05 -0.25 -0.6 1 0.51 -2:ł 6 0.22 0.00 •0.0ô 0.02
Italy 0.S9 -0.G2 -0:2R - 1.36 2.04 -0.22 - 1 3.0 4.?7
Portugal 0:61 -0.4J 0.49 0.91 1)7 030 - 1.26 0.3B
Spain 0.RO -0.32 0.41 .0.H -2Ö6 0.74 •0.74 •0'.2
Switzerland (French) 0.74 1.3ó 1.77 - 1.5ó - 1.87 0.91 038 -0.39

Nordlc Eurape
Denmark -3.02 1.76. 220 1.32 -U.19 -0.30 1.28 0.30
Finland .0.67 I.Q3 -1 :47 0.92 - I.75 -0.28 0.@S -0.73 -0.28
Sweden -0.77 1.92 2.03 -0.43 t.t7 .0.QG ’0’.02
Germanic Eurepe
Austria -0.53 L66 •0.4T 0.ł 2 -2.è5 ł.2 9 -0ÿ8
Germariÿ (prey. fiast) ores 4 .ss -086 -2.53 1.59 022 0L3 -1.%S
Germany (prey. West) 0.17 1.76 1.10 -2.42 1.1Q 0.91 0.)8 •1.91
Netheńäńds -230 0:89 :’0.5.ì -1.33 0.46 ’0f3 -0:9
Swîtzerlańô -õÔ5 201 -0.45 -2.77 0.99. -1.03
 e›Iqą ueJ eye S“q n$
e|anzaua/\

e¡euuaenç
'°P*^i"Sl3

eiqtuo]oj
8.
euiua6‹y
eo¡ewg uąej

8E’O 8f’0
'GI ’0 090 Ç90 EZ' î- 06'0
SZ”0- S0’Ö 8Ã’0 0’F0 .pueț• d
S8”0 o10 510
SZ” î 'čZ”0 E£’l- D1’0
0b”ł'

80’0
Uč‘0- 0L’0 OB’0
 -øóo -¢t.17 0.60 0.43 1 3

Morooce 1.66 '01õ: 0.53

Gatar a.3o O.16 -0.e6 1A6
0St2 -488 Ö99 -0.S2 -y.99

Ïndia. 1.o5 0.3g - T.16 a74

tndoîieșìa 0.01 Æ.40 0,7Z 0.05 -1.99

-0.88
Malaysia Q.B7 -1.32 -ŁI.77 1.58 040
Philippińes I.a5 —0.sz ß63

China
-ôm 1a9 as9 1w -2.S6 -T 7 0.BB 0Æ
*•^9 ^9 -d,•i1 q76 d.73. -0J8 —1,43
Japan
ß95.
Singapoæ
- L44 1.91 ß67 1.56 -J'I.81 OŒ 2.Of -1s
Sonth Korea
1.I3 —0 9
Tahsan
o.of -us izœ a.1z. - 91 643
Ąła+ge çashJvesœre means that the.culture Js h ¢mthatp/octirædÏmens . /\ large negative scoTe meacs that the cuhure h4ow oU ótatjgæcdrædimerisłon,TIi< aver-
age score Ïszero.9atÏr+gs are sandadlzed sp¥res: wkh the dec[mal œtnt Omitted: For the'Gender EgaÏitarÌarïkm d]rner!slon;a łarse positive score.+aeğnștkat the ctłtuial
Anglo
Australia .0.13 -1.07 OJl -0.t8 2.1d 0U3 -0.85 -0.20 0.68
Canada (tnglisT›) -0.10 -T.44 0.8i -vt4 2.35 0.48. -0.36 059. 0.94
England 0.19 0.8b 2:47 —L07 -0.47 0.02
Ireland -0.07 -}.0Li 0.|8 -0iJ0 2.41 -0.68 0.08 0.19
NewZealancl 2.31 -0.B7 Z.39 .L08 049 0.97 0i86 •2.â4
SouiJJ Africa (white) -0.28 D.06 0.65 -0.73 1.27 .0.39 .0.83' 0.99
USA(white') 0.33 -]..£i3 0.26 -tt4 2..2"l *0.66' 0.56' .0.46
Latin Europe
Fance 0.07 0.02 0.57
1.50 -0.6B -0.36 0.44 2.1 3
lwae -J05 -0.42 OJ) 4 .S0 0.85
-0.94 -0.t0 -0.61 -0.62
lt?y -0:7’7 -0.37 0.12 0.fî8
0.7B -0.0î 0.35
Po vgâl •|03 .0.33 0.73 •0.51
I .î 2 ].39 0.3B -0.17’
SQan -K38 OJO C32 0.92 03b 0.32 -0.R7 1.J 6
Swtzerawd (Finch) 0.19 -!.31 <.90 0.85
-066. -0:07 1 70 .0.08
Nordlc Europe
Denn ark 0:07 -1.33 -0.48 -1.TU 2.28 -066 -2.85 0. i 0
Finland —0.80 -0.70 -tJ6 0.99 0.t2 1.05 .0.97 1.69
fiweden -Q.10 -1 .68 -L60 2.43 -0.33 -1.4B -0.17 0.99
Ger ma nic Euro
pg

Austria -fL86 -i .S9 -L Jfi -0.01 ].75 -t.53 -0.95 0.44 ' I i47
Germani ț prev. £astl -0.1 3 - 1.13 -J.76 -0.12 1.90 oM1 0.06
G zrrnany ț pr cv. Wes t) -0.57 2.14 1.37
0.16 K88 -1.1 I ’1.58 0.17 0.1 5
Nettie Cand s -D.83 -2 7 -J.39
-0.38 -tJ2’ '1..03 - L00
Switzerland -o.86 -2.40 -2.03
-0.J 0' 1.sR -1.73 0.0B
Eastern Europe
A1bania -1.26 -0.60 0.40 0.87 -0.1’9 -0.98 -0.38
I2eorgia 0.50 0.98 -0.04 -L82 -0.57 0.78 0.12 -0.80 0.76
Oreece -L0l OZQ -0.59 1.32 1.88 -1.31 •0.7S .044 -0,87
Hu‹Jgary -0.71 0.0Q -0.37 -0.RB 1.33 -0.72 049 0.02 0.fi4
Eazakhstan |J0 -0..35: -0.S5 -L40’ ).58 002 -1.09 -L64 0.85
Po1arid 1.12 0.12 1.04 |. 1 0 0.50 0.56
Russia -0:34 ’0.71 0.32 1.70 0.38 - î. 50 -0.03 - T.23 0.72
Siovenia -0â8 0:38 0.TO -0.72 t.73 1.1 R -0.19 î.37 -0.78

Latin America
Argenrina 2.07 -0.87 0.58 1.19 0 fi8
Bolivia 1.96 0.10 .0.90 0.72 1.58 .0.32 0.29 -L57
Brazil I I2 0.58 -1.45 2 .76 2.os - I .38 0.46 .0.53 .I.12
Coioml›ia -2O2 0.36 1.59 1.28 2.1 1 0.60 0.44 1.40 0.81
Costa Rica -0.45 '0.09 1. t 2 '0.BB f.35 0.JJ Ă.73 -0.1 7' -1':92
Ecuador - 1 J7 0.83 0.37 J.JR 1.23 0.29 -0.01 -O.73
El 1alya‹Ior -O.liz 1.11 1.83 1.39 -0.32 1.17' 1.fi9 0.15
GuâCemaq -1 J2, 0.40 : 1JB: 0.98 .39 1.00 0.56 -D.73
AAe%co U33 1 .02 . 0.76 0.36 1.54 -0.06 0.88 .0.52 -1.44
Venezela 1 .30 L02 1.37 I .73 •0.75 0.71 1.49 0.sl

Sub-Saharan Africa
Namiõia -0.4-2 .0.80 L0.9 -0.72 0,53 fi.1 2 {.J9
Niger‹a -0.13 i.57 -0.S4 0.58 0.5 l -0.90 0.95 I.25
South Africa (bJack) 2.66 0.25 -1:89 UlB8- 0.55 '-0.0L -0.73 -3.1 2 -J.57
Zarnbia. -0.89. '0.06 0J6 0.X 0.66 0,83. 0.97 0.86 0.Qd
Zimbabwe -0.19 0.4S 0.A8 0.26 0.97 1. 4 6 1..39 L49 -K04
 Power Uncertainty In-Group Institutional Getider Performance Future' Humane
Culture Distan<ø' Avoidance Collectivism Collectivism . Egalitarianism Asærtlver›ess 'Orientation Oriertt'ation 'Oriăntation

1. 7 1.18, ’’OJ2 -.I :73 0.F3 —o. I,7

łtiJvralt 062 Ø.10
Morocco 1J0 -0.22 0.37
0.?’8 —o +
Túrkey -0.95 0.06 0.26 1Œ -\.76
Southern Asb
India 0.J4 0.29. -0F5
Indonesia -1.03. .,0.97 4.õ1 õ68. -0.23 0.49 4’ó 8 -\.\:7
Iran 0.'ï9 '1:18 0:51 160. - 0.53 1.75 .063. 0:38 0@ï
Malaysia 0.68 0A0 ß48...............0.J6 Lł. 0.95 0.26 0.37
”Philippines. .0s 0.B2 1 q. ,.0.OB Ì.97 1.05 '1:07 -0.29.
Thailand ß36 1.SB D23. :0.72 Q.H j.7o' 1.ó 5 -\63

:.China
Hong Kong
1J7 -0.0J -1.56 -0ó 2' 0.74 \.47 0d0 -0.95 -0d7
Japan:
0.36 -a.5o -1..15 -1.z0 õ .20 3A2. -out -2:37 -0.0I
5ingap.õrê:
o.89 õ .ó 8 -0.48 õ .J8 1o0 O@7. 0Õ 2 -ô .7!ì ïó 0
South koręa
-0:5ë Ô .06: -0.73 -168 0.46 -0.Ì2 .0.16: -2.Ì2 0.7ó
Taiwan
0.1.0 1:10. @62. 062: 0.ï3 -Ì.38 &.7’3: -Ö Ó 5 -0:73
A |arge ğosltlve score rneań s thąt tfie ćuItu're İs hlgff on ihatyo/uei dlmü nslon. A largș Negative scge meani ihat the cuItu'Ie Iș low on that n/œi'diń 1ensIon'. The average
:sœre Is æra Rafngs ae standardIțed:scores, wlth-the declmaLpolnt om|tted. Forthę Gsnder Egalltarłantsm dlmenslon, a large pssltlve școe means that the cultunl Ideal
'Ïs,łë miŃ lrie. A'IaIqe.riepa*tlvę sœre.means’thaÏ.the cultural IdeaJ İs rȚ iascullne. A scare ofœro.lń dlcates the aJIturaI Ideal.Ïs egalfiarlän..
Bourn: Bp.êd o'n dä ta repaired In RobenJ. House, Pau| J. Hang'șs,'Mansour.Javidan ReterW: Dorfmari, and Y!pln Gupta (eds:I, Û vßurą Leodćrlhm snd:OigonIzarbni.' The
fiłobe Study.oł.CLI Socfitłes łThousaú d Oab; CA: Sage, 2004).
138

grotipings, .o.f:the countries.in. the .table. fefldct :thë analytical work.:of the GLOBE
resêar‹:h team; whiéh supports the äppropriatëness of thèse clusters of nations. Thus the
tables or- ganise the muntries in the GLOBE Studies by geographic areas and provide their
scores on the GLOBE dimensions. With the exception of the gender egalitarianism
dimension, large positive scores mean that the culture is high on that dimension, and large
negative scores clean that. the .culture is.low on that dimênsio.:n.
The.gender.ëgalitarian.dimension..requirei you to do a different kind of interprétation of the
information, becausc a score dose to zeio indicates a tender .egaIitarian culture, and a
large negati.ve séöre represents a éulture that is very masculine in its orientation.
The GLOBE research helps to darify our understanding of cultiual patterns in two w ys
First,:it sepàrates culturni practic the..ways.that peoplë typica11y.behave in everyday com-.
munication interaction 6om culturel volues, oi what people regard as important and
believe is ideal. One might expect, ofcourse, that practices and values are similar, but theyare
äot always so: Sometimes, when a culturê s practkm äre *extremë* oh a dimension, the pre-
ferred ideal is that: it be less so. In Spain, for exemple, power distance is very high, but the
‘ided" or pœferred power distance ià Î.ow..In Nordie European cultures, institutional collec-
tivisin ä uniformly low, but the ideal is that it should be much higher. lu China,! in-group
collectivisrn is high, öut the preference is for it to be much lower. Throughout Germanic
Europe,.:assertiveüêss is typically higlii but people’s ideal ü. that it .ihöuld b.e.1:›wer. In Egypt
and Kuwai6 humane orientation is high, but people would like it tö be lower. Thus, iù mann
Cultures and in maoy ways, there: is a tension between what ù anô what shouid be.
Second, the GLOBE research hc1ps,to explain the complex nature of culturel.patterns, By
providing updated information on a wide range of cultures, by iefining the distinctions that
differentiate among cultures, aiïd by revising and expandiñg the cultural dimênsions that are
relevant, this effört substantially increases our understanding ofcu1tures:and of intercultural
comf unication. Tö provide just .une. example of:thë usefulness: öf thê expuiÔed GLO.BE
dimensions,. consider the Japanese practices for institutional collectivism and fo:r in-group
collecñvism. Whereas the Japanese are extremely high in .institutional collectivism,.they are
somewhat below the. average for in-group collectivism. That is; decisions in Japan are most
often made, and Resources among the Japanese are typically distributed, in a very collectivist
fashiÔ:i, but thë collectivè grotip.tôt thê:Japanë that. is; the group with.Which people iden-
tify rnost"closel is not fiecesaaiily:”the famdy but rathei the örganizatiori, the natiön, or
some other social .unit. New Zealanden, Swedes, and Dance, among others, have patterns on
thèse dirrtensions. that are similar to. the Japanese; Greeks, Guatemalans, Colombians, .and
others have the oppoitte pattern.

CulturalTaxonomies and Intercult”ural Competence

The major lesson:in..th'is chapter.à.:thai cult:ures: vaiy systemaÖcally in.:thëir clioicm about
solutions.to basic human problems. The taxonomies offer::lërises th.rough which culturel vari-
atiöris can.be.undeistood and äppreiiated,.rather than ñegativelyevaluatèd.and.disregarded.
.Thë categories.in thèse'taxoriomies eau help. you to describe'the fundamental.:aSpêcts..of'eul-
turm..As:.trames of.teferenœ, they provide.:mechanisms to understand all.}ntercuttura1 com-
munication events: In..any intercultural en.countet, people may be communieating from very
differerrÏ perœptions.of:what:is'‘realiJ’.w.hat is "goo:d,“.aiid what is 'co:rrect' behaviör. The..
competent intercultural communicator. must:recognize that cultural variations in addressing.
 CH.A P T £ R 5 CùIturaI.Patterns arid.Cornrnunicatio'ri:'Taxonornies 139

Ôasic human..issues such as social rdations, emphäsis. on .self. ör group, and preferences .for.
verbal or nonverbal code usage will always de a factor in interculturd communication.
The taxonomies allow pu to use culture-specific knowledge to iinprove intercultuiat
.cnmpetence. First, begin by seeiÔng out införmation about the cultural patterns of those indi-
viduals with whom you.engage in intercultuial communication. To assist your understanding
ofihe culture,.sdect one of the taxnnômies..presented and seek information that allows you to.
ereate a profile of the culture’s preferrod choiccs. Libraries and the Internet aie namnl starting
places for this kind of knowledge. So, t‹xi, are representaôves of the culture. Engage them in
conversation as you try to understand their .culture. Most people welcome questions .nom a
genuinely curious penon. Bc systematic in your search for intörmation by using the categories
thoroughly. Think about the interrelatedness of the various aspects of the culture’s patterris.
Sec‹ind, study the patterns of@ur own culture. Because you take your beliefs, values,
norms, and social practioes for,granted, stepping outside of your cultural patterns by
re- searching them is very useful, you might want to describe the preferences of your own
culture by using one of the taxonomies.
The .third. step requires only a willingness to reflect on. your. personal..preferences..Do
your beliefs, values, norms, and social practices match those of the typical person in your cul-
ture! How do your choices coincide with and differ from .the general cultural description?
Finally, mentally consider your owii preferences by juxtaposing them with the de-
scription of the typical person froiñ another culture. Note the siiñilarities and differences
in beliefs, values, norms, and social practice. Can .you predict where misinterpretations
may occur because of contrasting assumptions about what is important and goods -or ex-
ample, the European American who shares the culture's preference for directness would
iiievitibly encounter difficulties in communication with a typical member of the.Japanese
culture or a typical Latino cultural member. 5imilarly,.knowing that you value informality,
and usually act accordingly, can help you to. monitor your expressions when communicat-
ing with someone from .a culture that prefers formality. Viewing time as linear ofien causes
problems in communication with people from cultures .with other orientations to time.
Ïnterpretations of behavior as date, *inattentive, or *disrespectful, rather than just 'dif-
ferentÿ can produœ alternative ways of viewing the tickirig of the clocL

Sumrñar
This chapter discussed three important taxonomierthat
time orientationi indulgence-restraint and monumen-
can be used to describe cultural variations. Edward Hall
talism—self-effacement. The power-distance dimension
placed cultures on a continuum 6om higl context to
aisesses thé degree to. wlich the culture believes thàt.
low mü text. High-context- cultures prefei'.rnessages in
iristittitio.nil power should be diatrib,uied .equally or
which. moat of°the meaning is éither implied by the
unequally. .The uncertainty avoidance. :.dimensiön
physical setting or is presumed to.be part of the individ-
desCribes: the extent .to which cultures, pfeÎer and'.
ual's internalized beliefs, values,.norms, and social prac-
can to.lerate ambiguity and change.. The individual-
tices;..low-context .cultures prefèr messages in wh:ich the.
-ism—mllectivism .dirnenslon describe.s :the degree to
information is contained within the explicit oode.
which: a culture relies on and has allegiance to the: self
G.eert .Hcfstede descri.bed seven: dimensions ör .the groùp.. The masculinité. femininity,dimensiön.
along: which:.dc›minant patterns of a culture. can.,.ò e
indicates the: degree to which ä culture values
ordered: power diatancei unceílainty avoiÒ ance„
asseriiveness and “manliness' or caring for others.and
individualisrn—cdllectivisrni rnasculinity—femininity,
the.. quality of life. The time-örientaiiori .dimension
 -PA R T T W 0 CúltLtral Differerices in GcmmunicatiÒrj

.refers .to a lorij-term versus short-term orientation

.Gender egalitaria inisin àrid assertiveness: . refine
toward life and work The indulgence-rearaint dimen-
Hofstede’s masculinity-femiainity dimeniiòn; jen-
sion contrasu. pleasure-seeking wlth self-restraint..The
der egalitarianism is:ahout equality between meu and
monurnentalismoelf-effacement dimeniion compares
women, wiiile.: assertiveness is about social domi-
prideliit stabâity with humble adaptation.
nance. Performance .orientaiion refers to task- or work-
The GIDBE researi iers identified nine dimen-
related .ar;x›mplishments, future orientation is
sions of culture and distinguidied betweerr cultural
.aboüt preferences for delayed veriu8 immediatè gr.ati-
priciiiei .(what people actually do) and cultural miner
ficatioris,. and humane. orientation is.concerned with
(what pec ple .should do). The power diitance arid
fairness and gerernsity.
unceitainty avoidance dimeniions ore similar to
Tke ïde«s ptesented in this chapter and tlte plevi-
those that Hofitede described.. In-group collectivism
ous. one olfer alternative lenses through which cultures
.and institutional collectivism refine Hofstede’s indi-
can .be undêrsidod and apprcciated. TàRn together,
v'iduali.sm-«ollectivisni dimension; in-group col-
thèse two chajters provide multiple äafRes Of reference
lectivism is. cnncerned with family loyaltyi whereas
that can be-used tu. enhance your knowledge, inötiva-
iocietal collectivism refers to group-oriented action.
tions› and skilli in:interculturai communicatiön.

For Dlscussion
1. What docs Edward Hall mean when he refers to
culture as. ä !'séreen” for its -nieoibeés?
i. Describe how. each öf Hofstede’s dimensioiu of
cuitural Patterns is diipiayed within your culture.
3. Docs HÖfitede’s taxonorny coincide with yÖur
owri irilercultural experiences! Expiain.
4. Coniider th'e following two philosophicai
statemeüts: I think; thereforei I am” and “I am
because we .are.". What do ïhese two statemenis
reveäl. äboüt the. underl ing cultural values of
those who use them?
S: Compare yoir own practices snd values with
the GlDBË’s cultural.practicês and.éu1tural val-
ués. In what ways are they the arme* Different?
What might this suggest about intercultural
communication?

For Further Readin

Edward T.. Hall,. Beyond. Cultu ra. (New Yorki. Anchor
Bmks, 1989), Óescrilm, in great detai1,the
cultural nriations among high- and low-context
Juli.
Robert: J. . Hóui.e, Paul. J. Hanges,. Mianso.ur Javidan,
Peter \Y. Dorfman,. and Vipin Gupta (eds,),
Cultura, £radership, ond Otganizatiàni: The
tSIDBE Snidi of. ó2 Societies (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sàge, 200d). À . mfimentous work .thàt pri•-
sents g,round-breaking research òn the: current
practices and.value dimensions that differ aino.ng
cultura. Provides textensive qüantitative evidence
lir cultural. variations on the. nine GLOBE
Jagd ep S Ch okar Felix C.' Brodbek and %bert J
House. (eds..),. Cuffure and Leadership. ecrors.:the
World: The tSLOBE Book a'f In-Depth SWdies of
2S. Sàcremes (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaüzri, 2007). À
conipanic n: to. the earlier GIDBE book, this
volume provides. in-depth qualitative infórma-
tion about-the dimensipns of iulture.
Bradley L. Kirkman; Kevin B: Lowe,..and Cristina B.
Gibsfiri,. “A. .Qúúrter ..Ceritury of C*fturzl
Cansequencex. A Review of Empirical Research
Incorp6ratirig Hotsiede’s' Cultural Voluee
extenslve research c n Hofstêde’â. fiist,five dimen-
slons on which..culturas cún vary..
CEaig Storri,Arnerirons ‹if Ward A Guide to..de Con-Do
Peaple (Yarmouth; ME: Intercultural Press, 2Oi4).
A iconcise descriptiori óf Eumpean Afiierican cul-
tural patterns.
F-or additional iriformation;about intercultural films and
about Web.sites for researching specific.cultures; pleñse
turn':to the.Reso.urces.section at:the back:of.:this bmL