Nowadays, business is not only domestic business but it also includes international business which refers to the investment and trade activities which are performed by companies across national boundaries. Also known as cross-border business, the value-adding activities that are managed, sourced, produced, marketed, and conducted by enterprises (Cavusgil et al. 2012: 4). The differences of cultures such as attitudes, ideas, values, behaviours, beliefs, and languages are issues for doing business internationally. As a result of these, the global orientation and the understanding of international cultural differences are required by the superiors of the multinational firms if they want to achieve in their role. Noordin and Jusoff (2010: 160) indicate that culture is originated in the values that are shared by members of a group. The difference of cultures including the range of objectives, co-operation, competition, relationships, and individualism are stressed. Thus, culture leads to the response of an individual to the environment. One of the ways to understand cultural differences is study the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions which are the early empirical studies of national cultural traits conducted by Geert Hofstede (Cavusgil et al. 2012: 101). This essay will focus on comparing the cultural dimension differences between two countries which are Thailand and Australia for individualism versus collectivism, and China and The United State for power distance. As Cavusgil et al. (2012: 101-103) indicate that the first cultural dimension was individualism versus collectivism describes whether the work of a person as an individual or within a group. The second was power distance refers to the handling of a society with the inequalities in authority between people such as the gap between the managers and the workers or the gap of gender. The third cultural dimension was uncertainty avoidance which focuses on the tolerance of risk and uncertainty in humans’ lives. Next, masculinity versus femininity is not describe about gender, but it refers to society’s orientation which is the values belong to particular gender. Hofstede’s fifth cultural value dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation signifies the level of people and organisations which postpones satisfaction to complete long-term achievement. Lastly, indulgence versus restraint refers to the ability of a society to allow and restrict pleasure of human drives. The first dimension in this essay focuses on individualism versus collectivism. On the grounds of Hofstede’s studying conceptual across the differences of cultures in terms of individualism versus collectivism especially in Asians and Westerns explaining in various working attitudes, collectivistic societies which mean the self-identified with an in-group and individualistic societies refer to the self-distinct from the in-group are a commonly accepted idea for Asian and Western countries respectively. The dimension of individualism versus collectivism means the association of personal perception between one's self-interest and the group of which one is a member (Noordin & Jusoff 2010: 160). Moreover, it can be defined as the preference of behaviour promoting in one’s self. Noordin and Jusoff (2010: 160) point out “Hofstede (1980) describes members in individualistic societies as self-centred, competitive rather than co-operative, having low loyalty for the organizations they work for, pursuing their own goals, having a low need for dependency upon others, and being calculative”. Moreover, in individualistic societies or the cultures that score high in individualism versus collectivism index reflect that members in individual society have an unclosed relationship, and each person tends to look after their own self-interest. These societies favour in individualism more than group congruence and their competition for resources is common that person who expresses the highest performance is rewarded (Rinne et al....
Bibliography: Cavusgil, S. Tamer, Knight, G., & Reisenberger, John R. 2012, International business: Australasian edition, Pearson, Frenchs Forest.
Deresky, H. & Christopher, E. 2012, International management: managing cultural diversity, Pearson, Frenchs Forest.
Humborstad, Sut I W., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R. & Perry, C. 2008, ‘Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance organizations’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1349-1364.
Kongsompong, K. 2005, ‘Collectivism, Ethnocentrism, Materialism, and Social Influences: A Before-and-After Effect of Tsunami in Southern Thailand’, The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 71-76.
Leung, Wei-Chu R. 1998, ‘An Intercultural Comparison of Two Styles of Parental Communication: American and Chinese’, Regent University College of Communication and the Arts, USA.
Noordin, F. & Jusoff, K. 2010, ‘Individualism-collectivism and job satisfaction between Malaysia and Australia’, International Journal Educational of Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 159-174.
Richardson, Maruta R. & Smith, Sandi W. 2007, ‘The influence of high/low-context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with Professors in Japan and America’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31, pp. 479-501.
Rinne, T., Steel, Daniel G. & Fairweather, J. 2012, ‘Hofstede and Shane Revisited: The Role of Power Distance and Individualism in National-Level Innovation Success’, Cross-Cultural Research, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 91-108.
Zhang, Q. 2005, ‘Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms’, Communication Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, pp.109-124.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document