The

Cul

tura

l Dim

ensi

on

John Hooker

Carnegie Mellon University

University of Pittsburgh

January 2009

Out

line

A cross-cultural perspective

Relationships vs. rules

Competition and risk

A C

ross

-Cul

tura

l Per

spec

tive

Wha

t cul

ture

is n

otCulture is

no

t primarily about food, language, dress,

customs, holidays.

Wha

t cul

ture

isCulture is about

ho

w w

e t

hin

k.

It determines our deepest assumptions, most of

which we not even aware.

Like an iceberg, culture lies mostly beneath the surface.

Lang

uage

Cui

sine

Dre

ss, h

airs

tyle

Ove

rt r

elig

ion

Co

nce

pt

of

auth

ori

ty

Con

cept

s

of s

pace

and

time

Gu

ilt v

s.

sham

e

Ru

le-b

ased

vs.

rela

tio

nsh

ip

-bas

ed

Apo

lloni

an

vs.

Dio

nysi

anU

nive

rsal

izin

g

ratio

nalit

y?

Man

agem

ent

of in

form

atio

n

Str

ess

man

agem

ent

Cov

ert r

elig

ion

Fun

dam

enta

l

conc

eptio

n of

real

ity

Pop

cul

ture

Cul

ture

vs.

per

sona

lity

Every culture contains the f

ull

ra

ng

e of human personalities.

Culture is about the framework

into which these personalities fit,

no

tabout ”national character.”

However, different personalities

succeed in different cultures.

Rel

atio

nshi

ps v

s. R

ules

Tw

o ty

pes

of c

ultu

res

There are 5000+ cultures in the world, all very

different.

But they can be classified roughly as:

rela

tio

nsh

ip-b

ase

d

rule

-ba

se

d.

Relationship-based = life is organized primarily

around p

ers

on

al

rela

tio

nsh

ips.

Africa, Asia, Middle East, South America

Rule-based = life is organized primarily by r

ule

s.

Australia, Europe, North America

Meetings

Personal connections vs. strictly business

Deals

Personal trust vs.

contracts & law

Trust the p

ers

on

vs. trust the s

yste

m.

Traffic behavior

Negotiation vs.

regulation.

Traffic in China

Dealing with s

tre

ss

Family & friends vs. technology & engineering.

Filipino family

Concept of authority.

Relationship-based –authority rests in the p

ers

on.

Rule-based –authority derives from r

ule

s.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques

King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud

Many cultural traits

co

rre

late

with the rule-based,

relationship-based distinction.

Rel

atio

nsh

ip-

bas

edR

ule

-bas

ed

Hig

h po

wer

dis

tanc

eLo

w p

ower

dis

tanc

e

Sha

me-

base

dG

uilt-

base

d

Hig

h-co

ntex

tLo

w-c

onte

xt

Cor

rupt

ion

as

brib

ery

Cor

rupt

ion

as

chea

ting

Pow

er d

ista

nce

Po

we

r d

ista

nceis the

degree to which less

powerful people a

cce

pt

their subordinate position.

Rel

atio

nsh

ip-

bas

edR

ule

-bas

ed

Hig

h p

ow

er

dis

tan

ceL

ow

po

wer

d

ista

nce

Sha

me-

base

dG

uilt-

base

d

Hig

h-co

ntex

tLo

w-c

onte

xt

Cor

rupt

ion

as b

riber

yC

orru

ptio

n as

ch

eatin

g

Relationship-basedcountries

tend to be h

igh

power

distance.

Behavior is regulated by p

eo

ple

with authority.

Rules are legitimated and

enforced by authority figures.

Leaders are expected to be

wise and caring.

Example: Deng Xiaoping

Deng Xiaoping

De facto leader of China

1978-1992

Rule-based countries tend to

be l

owpower distance.

People respect the r

ule

smore

than superiors.

Example: Sweden.

Karl XVI Gustaf

Swedish King since 1973

High power distance:

Children obey and respect parents, teachers.

Employees are reluctant to challenge the boss or discuss

problems.

•Guangzhou executives

•Filipino maids

High power distance:

Ideal boss is benevolent or

fatherly autocrat (rarely female).

Large differences in salary/skills.

Class differences, limited upward

mobility.

Dalit (untouchable)

India

Low power distance:

Children are allowed to contradict their parents.

Two-way discussion in classroom.

Discipline may be a

problem; parents side

with child rather than

teacher.

No corporal punishment.

Low power distance:

Consultative management.

Employees bring concerns and grievances to the boss.

Ideal boss inspires workers.

Labor unions.

Smaller salary differences;

workers may resent

executive perks.

•Scandinavian vs. U.S. offices.

•Power distance higher in

U.S. business

Solidarity logo, Poland

Sham

e an

d gu

ilt

Sh

am

eand g

uil

tare mechanisms for enforcing

behavior norms.

Rel

atio

nsh

ip-

bas

edR

ule

-bas

ed

Hig

h po

wer

dis

tanc

eLo

w p

ower

dis

tanc

e

Sh

ame-

bas

edG

uilt

-bas

ed

Hig

h-co

ntex

tLo

w-c

onte

xt

Cor

rupt

ion

as b

riber

yC

orru

ptio

n as

ch

eatin

g

Re

lati

on

sh

ip-b

ase

dcultures enforce behavior

norms by s

ha

me.

Loss of face.

Humiliation.

Punishment on the spot.

Direct and constant supervision.

•Department store cashier.

No guilt.

•Shohei Nazawa and Yamaichi Securities

Key point for shame-based cultures:

Failure to supervise g

ive

s p

erm

issio

n to break the “rules.”

•Public transit.

•Exam cheating.

•Government regulation.

Gu

iltis more important in

rule

-ba

se

dcultures.

Guilt encourages obedience to

rules without supervision.

But it may be a poor motivator

and carry high psychological

cost.

•Ein gutes Gewissen ist an

sanftes Ruhekissen.

Guilt is reinforced by fear of

punishment.

Con

text

In l

ow

-co

nte

xt

cu

ltu

res, information and behavior

norms are spelled out.

Typical of rule-based cultures.

The rules are spelled out.

In h

igh

-co

nte

xt

cu

ltu

res, these are implicit in the

cultural context.

Norms are transm

itted by the people around you.

Particularly authority figures.

Rel

atio

nsh

ip-

bas

edR

ule

-bas

ed

Hig

h po

wer

dis

tanc

eLo

w p

ower

dis

tanc

e

Sha

me-

base

dG

uilt-

base

d

Hig

h-c

on

text

Lo

w-c

on

text

Cor

rupt

ion

as b

riber

yC

orru

ptio

n as

ch

eatin

g

In l

ow

-co

nte

xt cultures,

There any many s

ign

s,

timetables, maps.

Co

ntr

acts

are written, long,

and detailed.

•Fixed once signed.

•Disputes resolved by

lawsuits.

People expect the rules to be

in writing.

People p

ay

att

en

tio

n t

o

wri

tte

n r

ule

s.

•Example: restroom sign.

In h

igh

-co

nte

xt cultures,

People already know what to do.

Co

ntr

acts

are vague, verbal, or nonexistent.

•Except in “low uncertainty tolerance” cultures, e.g. Latin

America.

•Agreements evolve with the situation.

•Legal system weak.

•Disputes resolved by negotiation.

People d

on

’t p

ay

att

en

tio

n t

o

wri

tte

n r

ule

s.

•But good for high-tech information

transfer.

Cor

rupt

ion

Co

rru

pti

onis behavior that

undermines a cultural system.

So corrupting behavior is

dif

fere

ntacross cultures.

Rel

atio

nsh

ip-

bas

edR

ule

-bas

ed

Hig

h po

wer

dis

tanc

eLo

w p

ower

dis

tanc

e

Sha

me-

base

dG

uilt-

base

d

Hig

h-co

ntex

tLo

w-c

onte

xt

Co

rru

pti

on

as

bri

ber

yC

orr

up

tio

n a

s ch

eati

ng

In relationship-based cultures, b

rib

ery

is common

.

Also kickbacks, facilitating payments.

Short cut to relationship building.

System is

slo

w but

sta

ble.

•e.g., Chinese economy

In rule-based cultures, c

he

ati

ng

is common

.

Income tax evasion, business scandals, plagiarism

.

Relatively little supervision.

System is

eff

icie

nt

but

un

sta

ble.

Com

peti

tion

and

ris

k

Tw

o m

ore

clas

sifi

cati

ons

Masculine

Feminine

Uncertainty tolerant

Uncertainty avoiding

These do not necessarily correlate with rule-

based/relationship-based or with each other.

Mas

culi

ne/f

emin

ine

The distinction can be understood

in two ways…

Ma

scu

lin

eF

em

inin

e

Uncertainty tolerant

Uncertainty avoiding

Mas

culi

ne/f

emin

ine

Attitude toward m

ascu

lin

e v

alu

es.

Masculine: Men are expected to be t

ou

gh.

Feminine: Men & women more s

imil

ar.

Attitude toward c

om

pe

titi

on.

Masculine:

co

mp

eti

tio

nvalued.

Feminine:

co

op

era

tio

nvalued.

Japan

USA, UK, Ireland

Philippines

India

Bantu cultures in

Africa

Arab cultures

Eastern Slavic

cultures

Machismocultures

Scandinavia

Western Slavic

cultures

Thailand

Masculine values

MasculineFeminine

Masculine

Feminine

Competitiiveness

This is not

machismo

Unc

erta

inty

Attitudes toward unpredictability

in life…

Masculine

Feminine

Un

ce

rta

inty

to

lera

nt

Un

ce

rta

inty

av

oid

ing

Unc

erta

inty

Uncertainty tolerant:

Willing to take risks.

Entrepreneurial in business.

Comfortable with travel, relocation.

Unc

erta

inty

Uncertainty avoiding:

Prefer familiar surroundings.

Risk-averse in business.

Dysfunctional bureaucracy serves as ritual.

Unc

erta

inty

Some uncertainty avoiding cultures:

Greece.

Latin America.

Slavic cultures.

Belgium.

France.

Unc

erta

inty

Some uncertainty tolerant cultures:

U.K.

USA.

Hong Kong &

coastal Chinese.

Singapore.

Unc

erta

inty

Case study: Russia

Feminine culture

•Mother Russia

•Aversion to competition

•Post-Soviet failure of market

system

Uncertainty avoiding culture

•Fear of foreigners, reluctance

to emigrate.

•Created buffer states, first to

the west, now to the south.