The two countries that have been compared with the Hofstede five-dimensional cultural framework are China and Poland. Both countries are large with a big and dense population, with a history of undemocratic and State-controlled economy but which are known to be rapidly growing economies. The geographical distance between the two countries are also large, China is situated in Eastern Asia while Poland is in East-Central Europe. These are the reasons that these two countries have been selected for the comparison and analysis.
The main similarity between the two countries is in the cultural dimension of Power Distance. As the graphs and analysis shows, both China and Poland have relatively large power distance scores. China’s power distance score is a high 80, while Poland’s power distance score is a moderately high 68. The average score for most democratic, Western countries with capitalist economy is usually in the 40-45 range. This indicates that both China and Poland are hierarchical societies where businesses are run in a more formal manner, and inequality in rank, privileges and perks is more widely accepted .
The other area if similarity between the two countries is in Masculinity. Both China and Poland score almost the same – at 66 and 64 respectively. This is a moderately high score, while the Western average is around 35-40. This indicates that both China and Poland are achievement-oriented, success-driven and have a highly competitive society. Standing out and shining is seen as more valuable than maintaining modesty and blending in. This also means that work-life balance is not a big factor in the work ethic of these two countries.
How the two countries are different in terms of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions.
The differences between the two on three out of the five dimensions are significant and substantial. There is a wide difference in the level of individualism – China’s score is a very low 20, while Poland’s score is a healthy and moderately high 60. This indicates individual Poles are likely to care less about conforming to society and are more likely to discover what they want to pursue in life. It also means social units are small and confined to small nuclear families, or even single unmarried individuals. The family structure is stronger and wider in China. In business terms, this also means chances of nepotism and favoritism will tend to be higher in China .
Another big area of difference between the two countries is in Uncertainty avoidance. Poland has an exceptionally high uncertainty avoidance score of 93, while China scores a moderately low 30, at par with Western Europe. This signifies that Poland is a country where people are less likely to take risks such as starting up a new business or resigning from a mundane and demoralizing job. This may be traced to the legacy of the Socialist Command economy and the experience of mass privatization. Polish people came to value a few certain and guaranteed benefits and dreaded the disappearance of the same. China, which was always much poorer and less developed than Poland, had a much more vigorous entrepreneurial spirit .
If two organizations located in each of these countries are to do business with each other, how can they handle communication regardless of the different cultural perspectives?
The main concern to handle between Chinese and Polish business collaboration would be attitudes towards favoritism and nepotism. As is observed in the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’ analysis, China has a less individualistic culture. This means that people are deeply tied to their families, social groups, friends’ circles, and larger social networks such as clan, province and region. Such cultures are likely to favour a discriminatory attitude when dispensing with official business in favour if one’s own in-group members . This is obviously construed as conflict of interest in more individualistic cultures and will be seen as unacceptable by a business partner or collaborator. The key here is to issue a clear communiqué at the beginning of a business partnership detailing the expectations of the other party. What the other side is not supposed to do, and what is an obvious ‘deal breaker’, should be very clearly mentioned as part of the initial communication . This will help set the expectations and provide a good guideline for cross-cultural communication.
References
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage .
Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York City: McGraw-Hill.
