BUS600 Assignment Week 2 TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Student Name

BUS600: Management Communications with Technology Tools

29th August 2021

Introduction

Hofstede’s cultural orientation model provides a framework for communications across different cultural groups. The theory illustrates the effects of society’s culture on the values of its members and how those factors relate to the behavior of the communities            ( Levitt, 2019). The model uses factor analysis to examine the results of a survey. The original theory provides four dimensions of cultural values: individualism­collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity femineity. Two other dimensions were added to the model to include: long­term orientation and indulgences versus selfrestraint.  Culture can be described as a collective mental programming of the human mind that distinguishes one group of people from another; that, however, does not mean that everybody in the community is programmed in the same way. This paper, therefore, identifies how similar and contrasting the united states and China are with regards to culture.

Most significant areas where the countries are similar and different according to

Hofstede’s cultural orientation model

The differences between the united states and China regarding Hofstede’s cultural model include: in the power distance dimension, China believes that inequalities amongst individuals are accepted ( Levitt, 2019). The subordinate employees are mistreated, and there can never be complaints about power use by the superiors. In the Chinese community, people are usually influenced by formal authority, and people are not allowed to have aspirations beyond their ranks. However, in the united states, individuals are aware of the inequalities, but they agree that power has to be distributed unequally.

In the individualism dimension of the model, the Chinese people are more collectivist as they usually act in the group’s interest compared to the welfare of an individual. In this king of cultures, people belong in groups to take care of each other in exchange for loyalty. Similarly, in the united states, people also act in the group’s interest for commitment. In the masculinity dimension of Hofstede’s model, it is evident that both America and China are masculine countries which means that they are both success­oriented. This is amplified in the fact that most Chinese and Americans will sacrifice family for work (Pedeliento., & Kavaratzis,2019). An example is also evident in that American and Chinese students will care so much about exam scores as this is the only criteria available for determining success. In contrast, feminine countries like what they do rather than trying to be the best in what they do like the masculine countries.

There is a degree of acceptance of new ideas in the community in the united states, and there is general acceptance in trying something new. Americans always tend to be tolerant to unique views and opinions, whether it pertains to technology or food .in contrast, the Chinese people have a very low uncertainty avoidance. The Chinese people are comfortable with ambiguity; for example, the Chinese language is full of ambiguous meanings that western cultures cannot understand. China also believes that truth depends on the situation and that society has to be pragmatic. The Chinese people show that they can adapt to new traditions quickly if conditions are changed. However, the American people want to analyses further information to confirm whether it is true or not.

Issues that could arise if the two countries tried to work together

The cultural differences are diverse and include ethnic heritage, values, and traditions, among many other factors. Any of the cultural features and attributes become barriers to effective working together(Pedeliento., & Kavaratzis,2019). If America and China decided to work together, then their cultures may conflict, and the values they stand for will also disagree. However, there are several similarities in the way that the two countries rank in Hofstede’s model. Therefore, it is possible that the two countries can work together through amalgamation where the different cultures are blended rather than one culture dominating the other and trying to eliminate the other.

Analyze how communication technology can be used to bridge the gap between cultures

Information technology has been very crucial in bridging the gaps that are available between the two countries. Cultural bridging ensures that adequate tools are put in place to ensure that there is improve communication (Pedeliento., & Kavaratzis,2019). For example, some digital translators are essential in the translation of different languages so that an individual can understand the importance of other cultures. It is also necessary to keep an open mind while working with individuals from other cultures. Information about the different countries can also be accessed through communication technology services. Therefore, it is possible to read about the different cultures present and have a rough idea about what is happening.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is essential to note that there are different cultures worldwide and that each country has its own richly and deeply rooted cultures that govern its day­to­day activity. However, cross­cultural adherence must be observed, and that there is a need to breach the gap between the two contrasting cultures. In light of these realities, it is therefore essential that the gap is contravened completely for every country to become accustomed to any culture in the world and maintain a good working environment. Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge that culture plays a vital role in the traditions of the society and that without culture, there can never be a definition and identification of a given society.

References

Levitt, S. R. (2019). Cultural dialectics in international teamwork dynamics. International

Journal of Business Communication, 56(3), 326­348.

Pedeliento, G., & Kavaratzis, M. (2019). Bridging the gap between culture, identity and image: a structurationist conceptualization of place brands and place branding.

Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Rojo, J., Everett, B., Ramjan, L. M., Hunt, L., & Salamonson, Y. (2020). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as the explanatory framework for performance issues during clinical placement: A mixed methods study. Nurse education today, 94, 104581.

Sannino, G., Lucchese, M., Zampone, G., & Lombardi, R. (2020). Cultural dimensions,

Global Reporting Initiatives commitment, and corporate social responsibility issues: New evidence from Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1653­

1663.

https://www.hofstede­insights.com/