Eric Hawkinson In my lit review, I came across this article: Ardichvili, A., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: A comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US. Human Resource Development International, 5(1), 99-117. Retrieved from unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan007373.pdf Here is an excerpt from the abstract: "Regarding socio-cultural dimensions, the study found that, compared to Germany and the US, the four former USSR countries differed primarily by much lower levels of Power Distance, higher levels of Masculinity and much longer planning horizons. The results on leadership indicate that two dimensions - Contingent Reward and Inspirational Motivation - produced the highest scores in all four countries of the former USSR. Two less efficient leadership styles, Laissez-faire and Management by Exception, have received significantly higher scores in the four former USSR countries, than in the US and Germany." (p. 99) If energy allows, I'll post some synthesized information. :)
Tony Hetrick This is some good information. I have been looking into how this information applies to educational technology, mainly the aspect of technology acceptance between different cultures.
This is the closest to real-life experience I have seen since researching the Hofstede framework, thanks. One question, what qualities would you like to see in a manager from US going to manage a business in Japan
Indulgence: only one I really agree with.. on the scores. However, this self restraint is based on lack of access to the resources that satisfy immediate gratification?
Similar power distance between Japan and US? ?? when an elder male determines how/when an employee even stands or sits. in a meeting? .Where is this similar in the US?
I think Hofstede would say that the reason the US and Japan score similar here is due the highly democratic society and systems present in each culture. The male/female relationship difference is represented in the masculinity dimension, which the US and Japan scored very different.
From what I've leant 'Masculinity' in high score (masculine) means the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success. And low score (feminine) means they dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. But not accepting the power of women or men. With regards,
Clear.. US is more individual than any country in the world? How does this compare to Poland? There, it appears appear very individualistic outside the immediate family...
Who decided these rankings? for example power distance. The whole sempai/kohai thing, having to speak keigo to your boss and do whatever he/she says just doesn't really exist in the USA. Similarly most people treat their boss at the same level in the USA. In other words Americans generally don't consider that bosses, teachers, etc deserve *more* respect than themselves. Conversely CEO vs employee pay in the USA seems further apart than Japan. But, American salaries are generally much higher than Japan (or at least that's my experience). In other words while the different in salary between a CEO and myself might be larger in the USA I feel more respected there because the CEO is paying me 2x to 3x as much as the same job in Japan. I also find the collectivism rating problematic. There's the all the obvious things like your nail example. But at the same time all the bosses act like little kings of fiefdoms lording over their serfs which way WAY less collectivist than the USA The indulgence thing also seems off. So many people go to hostesses, prostitutes, in numbers way WAY larger than the USA. How is stuff like that factored in? In other words it seems impossible for these numbers to have any real meaning given all the complexities.
These are great thoughts +Greggman - Let me try to see if I can add some of my own thoughts to them. Your examples about power distance are good ones. Japan is placed a bit higher on this dimension and I tend to think that mostly comes from the adherence to the structure of society and organizations. The rankings were derived from an extensive study lead by Geert Hofstede at the IBM research labs looking mainly into workplace environments in more than 70 countries. It should also be noted that these dimensions and rankings have been refuted in multiple research papers and projects. So they are by no means perfect, but they are still a decent thinking experiment and tool to help us compare cultures. I agree that culture is a concept that my be impossible to quantify, Japan and the US cultures are pretty well defined and quite different so these comparisons may be a good place to start discussion. But I have seen these rankings become much less useful with countries much more similar as the nuances become more important to make distinctions between the cultures.
You could try making people try to convey complex thoughts using very few words. The exercise might force people to think about common contexts to fill in the gaps.
When looking at the masculinity you say that US is more equal with the value of 46, but then I look at Denmark where I live. We have a value of 16, and here we are saying that woman and men are equal at every thing (have some problems with military service only applys to men, fathers taking as much maternity leave as mother and not as many female board members, but the government actually wanted to make a law saying that at least 25% should be a woman but wasn't implemented). My question is, if both men and woman were completely equal would the score then be 0? What is the country was dominated by women, would the scoring then have to be negative?
+Henrik Aabom - When I said the US was more equal, I was still in the context of comparing the US and Japan. As to your other questions, I think they are good ones. Looking at Japan, women live much different lives in general than men, and men dominate positions of power. As I understand it, a lower score means more equality of the sexes. The score of 16 in Denmark is quite remarkably low. I have no knowledge of a negative score but if there were, I'm sure this dimension would have to be updated in some way.
I think his presentation on Masculinity is completly off-topic or oficial Geert's website is not true. "A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field - a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable." Source: geert-hofstede.com/lithuania.html
I don’t know why people are thanking the producer of this video for its simplicity; we are being spoon fed the information. I can read the slides just like you can! Please don’t insult my intelligence and read verbatim the information I can see myself.
Wow, this is some strong feedback. Appreciated of course. Here is some context. I teach non-native English speakers quite often and you can imagine I think of this a lot when designing my content. That is why there are comments about clarity in the comments, as it might be more easily understood by say a Japanese university student. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. I am sure you are super smart! Let's keep learning!
Together Learning I realize it came across strong! Just wanted to share my thoughts. I personally enjoy seeing a brief outline on the slide and YOU tell the details.
