Developed by Hofstede (2001), the national cultural dimensions theory is one of the foundational concepts of cultural values. It offers the basic framework and insights of how cultural values define members’ roles and behavior along six cultural dimensions: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity/Femininity, Long-term/Short-term Orientation, Individualism/Collectivism, and Indulgence/Restraint (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede compared countries’ position on each dimension’s spectrum with each other to help researchers and learners gain a more holistic view on the cultural differences and similarities.
One thing I have learned from the culture dimensions came from comparing conflict resolution styles between countries. While the individualist Western culture might be more comfortable with confrontation during a conflict, collectivist cultures in East Asian solve a direct conflict with an avoidance style (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). For example, at my workplace when I have a direct disagreement with a team member about a work assignment during a staff meeting, instead of in front of the team most likely we would try to talk it out afterward. China’s High-Power Distance Index impacts people’s conflict approach choice because it makes staff much more likely to seek conformity or compromised solution with their leaders (Hofstede, 2001).
Before I signed up for the cause, I thought to work in a cross-cultural setting automatically means I have an advantage on diversity issues, but the cultural dimensions helped me to see my work culture was more homogeneous than I like to admit. Though cross-cultural, my workplace lacks demographic diversity. The nature of our work determined our work population only consist of Americans and Chinese nationals. However, one type of diversity we do demonstrate at work lie in the area of psychological diversity. Our staff professional variety goes from recent college graduate to senior staff with decades of experiences. The Chinese staff includes people from all over the country, while the American Officers bring in even more psychological diversity with their different religious background, previews posting experience, and expertise. This dynamic also shows in the way staff differ in task approach, educational background, and skill (Levi, 2016).
I discovered another connection with cultural dimensions and self-realization when I compared the individualistic and collective cultures’ view desired leadership personality traits. As someone who identifies more with the collectivistic culture, my introverted personality fits in with the culture’s emphasis on group identity and unity. Susan Cain (2012) argues in her well-researched book on introversion that the western society has always favored action over contemplation. Being an introverted leader in Chinese culture indicates someone who listens, focuses on the group, and contemplative; someone who is not here to steal the spotlight. On the contrary, the idea of a leader in the U.S. is someone who speaks up, who is assertive, charismatic, and self-promoting. Cain’s book provides me the cultural understanding and support I needed as an introvert. The cultural dimension further helped me to discover the Western society’s view of favor on extraversion and leadership.
Team Assessment for Group Projects
This course has also helped me to view team effectiveness in a new light. When we formed the teams for our R1 assignment, we signed up for groups based on project topic preference. The teams were grouped randomly instead of out of personal choice or acquired skill-set. Similarly, I joined my R4 at
