Cultural Inclusiveness Contributing Satisfaction

Question: Discuss about the Cultural Inclusiveness Contributing Satisfaction. Answer: Introduction It was identified that each nation has its own culturally distinct clusters. Each of those clusters reflects a shared history, religion, economic expansion, regional closeness and other factors. As mentioned by Moran et al. (2014), within each cluster, nations are parallel on three to four cultural value orientations. Anglo is a cluster that includes countries such as UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, USA and New Zealand. On the other hand, China is included in the cluster named as Confucian Asia where other countries in the same cluster are Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Thailand. Initial cross cultural differences between Australia and China can be seen by understanding these two clusters. Anglo cluster reflects individualism, insolence and extravagance. Within this cluster, people of different nation including Australia reflect a high personal goal orientation (Van den Bos et al. 2013). Here rewards are based on merit and personal achievement goals take preference over family or communal bonds. China belongs to Confucian Asia where goals are more communal and family oriented. Within in this cluster, cultural value profile describes societies with a pragmatic and entrepreneurial direction (Minkov and Hofstede 2012). Chinese people put more focus on relationships than any other matter in their life. Further cross cultural differences between Australia and China are described below using Geert Hofstede model. Power Distance As mentioned by Biddle and Swee (2012), this dimension oversees the fact that people in a society are not identical. It shows the amount to which the less influential people of associations within a nation expects and accept that power is dispersed asymmetrically. When Australia is compared with China in terms of this dimension, then it can be seen that Australias score is low that is 36 than China. Chinas score in this dimension is 80. Within Australian organization, hierarchy is developed for expediency and superiors are always available if someone is looking for help. Managers strappingly depend on individual employees and teams for their proficiency (Meadows 2013). In Australian organization information is shared recurrently where communication styles are extremely informal, direct and participative. Australian employees are not restricted within their ranks and they are allowed to provide ideas for other departments. Brainstorming is a common method used in Australian organizations where employees are allowed to provide even out of the world ideas. Score of China in this dimension is on the higher side as Chinese society strongly believes that differences and inequalities among people are acceptable. In Chinese organizations relationship trend between employees and employers is polarized. Senior employees or employees can abuse subordinates where those subordinates have no defense against it (Blowers 2014). Formal authorities are here responsible for influencing each employee that also includes sanctions. Another reason that China has a high score in this dimension is because of the people of the nation who are generally idealist. People of China are strongly optimist about others capacity for leadership and initiative. On the other hand, employees of a department are strictly instructed to perform and think about their job only (Warner 2014). They are not expected and allowed to show ambition beyond their rank or position in an organization. Individualism Individualism is a dimension where the issue related to the amount of interdependence that a civilization maintains amid its members is discussed. It deals with a major factor of a society that is whether self image of people is described in terms of We or I. Societies that are individualist, people are expected to look after themselves and their families only. On the other hand, in case of collective society, citizens mostly stick to groups that take care of them in trade for devotion. In this dimension, Australia being a highly individualist culture has a high score which is 90. This clearly indicates that society in Australia is loosely-knit where people are expected to look after themselves and their family only (Brown 2012). Same thing can be seen in case of the business organizations of Australia. In business organizations of Australia each employee is expected to become self reliant. They are also expected to show initiative. On the other hand, within the exchange-based world of work in Australia, any decision related to promotion and recruitment strictly depends on merit and experience. Previous work experience highly matters in Australia as organization want to know about what one has done or is capable to perform. China has a low score of 20 in this dimension as the nation follows a collectivist culture (Li et al. 2016). People in China act work to fulfill goals and objectives of the groups. Personal gaining and achievements are not important in this nation. As a result of this in-group deliberation hiring and promotional activities get affected in the country. It is already discussed that in Australia, recruitment and promotional activities are strictly based on the qualification and capability (Atchley et al. 2014). On the other hand, it is absolutely opposite in China. While recruiting new candidates or promoting existing candidates Chinese employers give preference to family members or employees who are deeply influenced by them. In china it is also seen that commitment of employees towards the organization is comparatively low than the employees of Australia. However, employees show more commitment to the people with whom they are working. On the other hand, it is also true that in some o rganizations of China relationship among the employees is cold and hostile. In China, personal relationship gains more preference over organizational goals and company (Liu et al. 2013). Masculinity Masculinity is also known as manhood, manliness or boyhood. It is a set of behaviors, attributes and roles that are commonly related with men and boys. According to Koopmann-Holm and Tsai (2014), masculinity is a socially constructed characteristics but it is made up with biologically created and socially constructed factors. It has been found that both males and females can show masculine characteristics (Vaiman and Brewster 2015). It includes traits such as assertiveness, independence, and courage. All these traits change in accordance to context and location. Vaiman and Brewster (2015) stated that, these factors are also influenced by cultural and social factors. Liu et al. (2013) argued that over-importance on masculinity is related with disregarded responsibility and consequences. High score in this dimension (Masculine) means the society will be driven by factors such as success, achievement and competition. It is a value system that starts from school and continues throughout the life (Vaiman and Brewster 2015). On the other hand low score in this dimension (Feminine) means dominant factors in the society are such as quality of life, caring for others. It has been found that, Australia and China both score high in this dimension. Australia scores 61 in the dimension, while China scores 66 in this dimension. Hence, both the countries can be considered as masculine. In Australia, it has been found that behaviour in school; play and work are based on their shared value of success (Rallapalli and Montgomery 2015). They always try to be the best that they can be. They believe that the winner takes all. Koopmann-Holm and Tsai (2014) stated that, Australians are always feel proud of their successes and their achievements in life. All the hiring decisions and promotional decisions in Australian companies are taken on the basis of this characteristic. In case of country China, it has been found that Chinese people can sacrifice their personal life, leisure and family to give priority to work (Koopmann-Holm and Tsai 2014). For this reason, the country score 66 in this dimension. For example, service providers like hairdressers can give servi ce until very late night. Migrated farmers can sacrifice their family in order to get better job opportunities (Geert-hofstede 2016). Chinese students care very much about their scores and rank in exam. All these are prior example of masculine society. Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance is the dimension that defines how the civilization deals with the information that the future is unknown (Vaiman and Brewster 2015). This dimension brings apprehension with it. Dissimilar cultures have learnt different systems to deal with anxiety. According to Koopmann-Holm and Tsai (2014), the degree to which members of a culture feel endangered by unknown situation and shaped viewpoint to shun these situations is reflected in the score of uncertainty avoidance. It has been found that people with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more rational. Doris et al. (2015) stated that these types of people always try to avoid unknown and uncertain circumstances. They follow all the rules, laws and regulations step by step. On the other hand, people belong to low uncertainty avoidance are comfortable around unstructured situations and dynamic environments. These people are considered as more pragmatic and they are tolerant change. The country Australia has scored 51 (Intermediate) in this dimension. The government of the country has developed different rules and regulations in order to control international business, organizational behaviour, international negotiation and communication (Spencer et al. 2015). On the other hand, China has score very low (30) in this dimension. Tawagi and Mak (2015) stated that, in the immediate social circle of Chinese people, truth is a relative term. All the rules and laws are becoming flexible so that they become suitable with the actual situation. Pragmatism is considered as a part of Chinese social life. According to Ferraro and Brody (2015), Chinese feel comfortable with uncertainty and they are tolerant change. In fact all the Chinese languages are full of many uncertain meaning, which are tough to follow by Western people. Chinese people are considered as entrepreneurial and adaptable (Veal et al. 2015). It has been found that majority of the Chinese organizations are sm all or medium in size (70%- 80%). For this reason, the feeling of uncertainty is considered low for Chinese organizations. Long Term Orientation Vogel et al. (2015) stated that, the dimension named long term orientation describes how every civilization maintains its association with its past, while dealing with the present and future challenges. This dimensional value can be considered as very important information in organizational management and negotiations as it has strong role to play in motivation. Long term orientation can be found when people become focused on their future. Long term oriented people are willing to setback their short term communal achievement, short term material or even short term expressive fulfillment so that they can become prepared for the future. Banks (2015) stated that, having this cultural perspective means people give value to perseverance, persistence, adaptation and savings. On the contrary, short term orientation is more focused on past and present rather future. They give ample value to social hierarchy, social obligation and traditions. Short term oriented people have more immediate gra tification compare to long term fulfillment. It has been found that different societies have prioritized these two existential aims differently. Torelli et al. (2015) stated that societies which scored low in this dimension is known as normative societies. They always try to maintain time-honored traditions and norms and view the social change as suspicion. On the other hand, cultures that scores high in this dimension, takes more pragmatic approach. They always encourage the effort in modern education and always try to be prepared for the future. It has been found that, Australia has scored low (21) on this specific dimension. Hence, it can be considered as normative culture. People belong to this society has strong concern about developing absolute truth (Geert-hofstede 2016). It has been found that Australians are considered as more normative in their thinking. They have great respect for their cultures and traditions. They have small inclination towards saving their futures. They are also focused on achieving results within small period of time. Chinese culture is found to be the opposite of Australian culture in terms of long term orientation. China has scored high (87) in this dimension. It means the Chinese people believe in pragmatic culture. Chinese society has more pragmatic culture. They believe that, truth highly depends on time, situation and context. Chinese people have the capability to adapt traditions comfortably in changed situation. They have strong inclination towards saving and investing on perseverance in order to achieve the result. Indulgence In accordance to Roman Catholic Church, indulgence is method reducing the amount of punishment that a person has to undergo for sins (Koopmann-Holm and Tsai 2014). It can be considered as a challenge that confronts humanity for the present and past. It is the degree to which children are getting socialized. Rallapalli. and Montgomery (2015) stated that without socialization people will not become human. The dimension of indulgence can be defined as the extent to which people can handle or control their impulses or desires, depending on the way they were raised. According to Matzler et al. (2016), strong control is known as restraint and weak control is known as indulgence. Hence, a culture can be described as restrained or indulgent. Australia has scored high in this dimension (71). Hence, Australia can be considered as an indulgent industry. People, who belong to this industry, show their willingness towards their desires and impulses. They use to enjoy their life and use to have fun in their work. Vaiman and Brewster (2015) stated that Australian people have inclination towards optimism and they are known for their positive attitudes (Marsh et al. 2015). On the contrary, China can be considered as restrained society, as it scores low (24) in this dimension in accordance to Hofstedes cultural model. Chinese society has the tendency or inclination towards pessimism and cynicism. Unlike Australian society, Chinese society does not provide much emphasis on the leisure time. Chinese people never want to manage the indulgence of their requirements. Chinese people have the awareness that their actions are totally controlled by their social norms. Conclusion In the end, it can be concluded that Australia and China have lots of cross cultural differences. The biggest difference was seen among the people of the country including their behavior and mentality. Australian people are focused on personal goals and put their professional life before their families. On the other hand, for Chinese people family comes first. They give minimum preference to organizational goals and objectives. This mentality of China is mostly seen at the times of promotion and recruitment. In Australia merit is preferred where in China relationship matters most. Society in Australia is loosely-knit where people are expected to look after themselves and their family only. On the contrary, People of China act together to fulfill goals and objectives of the groups. Personal gaining and achievements are not important in this nation. People belong to the Australian society has strong concern about developing absolute truth. It has been found that Australians are considered as more normative in their thinking. On the other hand, Chinese people believe in pragmatic culture. Chinese society has more pragmatic culture. They believe that, truth highly depends on time, situation and context. Chinese people have the capability to adapt traditions comfortably in changed situation. They have strong inclination towards saving and investing on perseverance in order to achieve the result. Reference list Atchley, P., Shi, J. and Yamamoto, T., 2014. Cultural foundations of safety culture: A comparison of traffic safety culture in China, Japan and the United States.Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour,26, pp.317-325. Bain, P., Vaes, J., Kashima, Y., Haslam, N. and Guan, Y., 2012. Folk conceptions of humanness beliefs about distinctive and core human characteristics in Australia, Italy, and China.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,43(1), pp.53-58. Banks, J.A., 2015.Cultural diversity and education. Routledge. Biddle, N. and Swee, H., 2012. The relationship between wellbeing and Indigenous land, language and culture in Australia.Australian Geographer,43(3), pp.215-232. Blowers, G., 2014. Gone with the west wind: the emergence and disappearance of psychotherapeutic culture in China, 193668.Psychiatry and Chinese history. Brown, A.J., 2012. Measuring the mysteries of federal political culture in Australia.Tomorrows federation: Reforming Australian government, ed. Paul Kildea, Andrew Lynch, and George Williams,310. Doris, E., Shekriladze, I., Javakhishvili, N., Jones, R., Treasure, J. and Tchanturia, K., 2015. Is cultural change associated with eating disorders? A systematic review of the literature.Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity,20(2), pp.149-160. Ferraro, G. and Brody, E.K., 2015.Cultural Dimension of Global Business. Routledge Geert-hofstede, 2016. [online] Geert-hofstede.com. Available at: https://geert-hofstede.com/ [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. Koopmann-Holm, B. and Tsai, J.L., 2014. Focusing on the negative: Cultural differences in expressions of sympathy.Journal of personality and social psychology,107(6), p.1092. Li, Z., Massa, M., Xu, N. and Zhang, H., 2016. DP11475 The Impact of Sin Culture: Evidence from Earning Management and Alcohol Consumption in China. Liu, C., Liu, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, Z. and Wang, P., 2013. Patient safety culture in China: a case study in an outpatient setting in Beijing.BMJ quality safety, pp.bmjqs-2013. Marsh, H.W., Abduljabbar, A.S., Morin, A.J., Parker, P., Abdelfattah, F., Nagengast, B. and Abu-Hilal, M.M., 2015. The big-fish-little-pond effect: Generalizability of social comparison processes over two age cohorts from Western, Asian, and Middle Eastern Islamic countries.Journal of Educational Psychology,107(1), p.258. Matzler, K., Strobl, A., Stokburger-Sauer, N., Bobovnicky, A. and Bauer, F., 2016. Brand personality and culture: The role of cultural differences on the impact of brand personality perceptions on tourists' visit intentions.Tourism Management,52, pp.507-520. Meadows, M., 2013. Reinventing the heights: the origins of rockclimbing culture in Australia.Continuum,27(3), pp.329-346. Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2012.Cross-cultural analysis: the science and art of comparing the world's modern societies and their cultures. Sage. Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R. and Moran, S.V., 2014.Managing cultural differences. Routledge. Rallapalli, K.C. and Montgomery, C.D., 2015. Marketing Strategies For Asian-Americans: Guidelines Based on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. InMinority Marketing: Research Perspectives for the 1990s(pp. 73-77). Springer International Publishing. Spencer, C., Macdonald, R. and Archer, F., 2015. Surveys of cultural competency in health professional education: A literature review.Australasian Journal of Paramedicine,6(2). Tawagi, A.L. and Mak, A.S., 2015. Cultural Inclusiveness Contributing to International Students' Intercultural Attitudes: Mediating Role of Intergroup Contact Variables.Journal of Community Applied Social Psychology,25(4), pp.340-354. Torelli, C.J., Shavitt, S., Cho, Y.I., Holbrook, A.L., Johnson, T.P. and Weiner, S., 2015. Justice or compassion? Cultural differences in power norms affect consumer satisfaction with power-holders.International Marketing Review,32(3/4), pp.279-306. Vaiman, V. and Brewster, C., 2015. How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM.The International Journal of Human Resource Management,26(2), pp.151-164. Van den Bos, K., Brockner, J., van den Oudenalder, M., Kamble, S.V. and Nasabi, A., 2013. Delineating a method to study cross-cultural differences with experimental control: The voice effect and countercultural contexts regarding power distance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,49(4), pp.624-634. Veal, A.J., Darcy, S. and Lynch, R., 2015.Australian leisure. Pearson Higher Education AU. Vogel, R.M., Mitchell, M.S., Tepper, B.J., Restubog, S.L., Hu, C., Hua, W. and Huang, J.C., 2015. A cross?cultural examination of subordinates' perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision.Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(5), pp.720-745. Warner, M., 2014.Culture and management in Asia. Routledge.