Interpersonal Communication at Your Workplace

Six Value Orientations

Now, let’s briefly discuss each of these six value orientations.

Individualism or Collectivism

One of the most central value orientations is whether an organization or individual prioritizes the rights and needs of the individual or those of the group. Believers in individualism respect autonomy and independence. They do not meddle in another's problems unless invited. On the other hand, individuals who are more collectivistic in nature tend to stress group needs over individual ones. For example, many North American and Northern European cultural groups value individualism and independence. These cultural groups believe that one's primary responsibility is to one's self (Janakova & Magdolen, 2013).

In contrast, many cultures in South America and Asia (Ho, 1987) hold a more collectivistic orientation (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995). For collectivists, the primary responsibility of an individual is to his or her relationships with others. Collectivists tend to view the interdependence in family, work, and personal relationships as a positive trait and thus value group harmony over independence and self-sufficiency.

Preferred Personality

Preferred personality describes whether an individual or group believes it is more important to do or to be (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). In the United States, researchers have found that doing is the preferred value for many people—because it allows for some future achievement as each goal is achieved—including European Americans, Asian Americans, and African Americans (James, 2015; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). In general, the doing mode means working hard to achieve material gains even if it means sacrificing time with family and friends. Other cultural groups, such as Latinos, prefer the being mode, which emphasizes the importance of experiencing life and the people around them fully even if this experience limits personal financial gains (Hecht, Sedano, & Ribeau, 1993; James, 2015).

View of Human Nature

View of human nature refers to whether a person sees humans as fundamentally good, evil, or a mixture of both. The Puritans, a group of people who believed that human nature was fundamentally evil, settled in the United States in the 17th century and are commonly known for having influenced the Salem witch hunts (Reed, 2015). Even in modern and post-modern times, cultural groups, such as some fundamentalist religions which view humans as essentially evil, emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. During the same time, a shift occurred and was reflected in the US legal system, which has traditionally emphasized rehabilitation, suggesting a view of humans as potentially good. However, some evidence of the early 21st century indicates that Americans in general may be moving again toward the aforementioned view of human nature although arguably not to the extreme view of the Puritans.

Recent laws, such as the three strikes rule, emphasize punishment over rehabilitation by automatically sending to prison anyone who is convicted of a crime three times although even this practice has come under debate (Sutton, 2013).

Human-Nature Relationship

The human-nature value orientation portrays how an individual or organization sees the relationship between humans and nature. At one end of this value continuum is the view that humans are intended to rule nature. At the other extreme, nature is seen as ruling humans. In a third option, the two exist in harmony. The predominant value in the United States has been one of humans ruling over nature, as evidenced by the proliferation of controlled environments.

In contrast, many people in the Middle East view nature as having predominance over humans. This belief that one’s fate is held by nature is reflected in the common Arabic saying Enchallah (Allah willing), suggesting that nature will (and should) determine, for example, how crops grow. Finally, many American Indians/Native Americans and Asians value harmony with nature. Followers of this cultural orientation believe that nature enriches human life and that humans and nature should coexist as one.

Power Distance

Power distance, the fifth value orientation, refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a culture expect and accept an unequal distribution of power (Hofstede, 2001). In Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand, for example, many people value small power distances, and most people believe that inequality—while inevitable—should be minimized.

Societies that value large power distance—for example, Mexico, Philippines, and India—are structured around a hierarchy in which each person has a rightful place. Interactions between supervisors and subordinates are more formal (Hofstede, 2001). Seniority, age, rank, and titles are emphasized more in these societies than in small power distance societies. When working internationally, understanding how different cultures value power distance enhances functional communications, and thus, results in functionally effective business relationships.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

This dimension reflects a society’s attitude toward virtue or truth. A short-term orientation characterizes cultures in which people are concerned with possessing one fundamental truth. This is reflected in the monotheistic (belief in one god) religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other qualities associated with a short-term orientation are an emphasis on quick results, individualism, and personal security and safety (Hofstede, 1997).

In contrast, a long-term orientation tends to respect the demands of virtue. This idea is reflected in several polytheistic (believe in more than one god) Eastern religions, such as Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism. Other qualities associated with a long-term orientation include thrift, perseverance, tenacity, and the willingness to subordinate oneself for a higher purpose (Nielsen, 2015).

An understanding of cultural values is essential because they greatly influence peoples’ behavior and communication. Communicating in highly diverse organizations involves confronting and responding to individuals who possess entirely different sets of cultural values. For example, team members who value collectivism also tend to have a long-term orientation. Such team members may be more comfortable with large power differences and putting relationships before productivity. In addition, these team members are also more likely to believe that a person need not hurry to create solutions and that the powerful members of the organization should retain most of the decision-making.

References:

Hecht, M., Sedano, M., & Ribeau, S. (1993). Understanding culture, communication, and research: Application to Chicanos and Mexican Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(2),157–165.

Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mindRev. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

James, A. B. (2015). Teaching children who are hard to reach.Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(4), 56−61.

Janakova, H., & Magdolen, L. (2013). Creative impact measure of cross-cultural managerial aspects. Creative and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 16−27.

Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations.Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Nielsen, K. (2015). Background and history of Confucianism—A literature review. Unpublished manuscript, Birkbeck Institutional ResearchOnline, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK.Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/12459/

Reed, I. A. (2015). Deep culture in action: Resignification, synecdoche,and metanarrative in the moral panic of the Salem Witch Trials.Theory and Science, 44(1), 65−94.

Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Sutton, J. R. (2013). Symbol and substance: Effects of California's three strikes law on felony sentencing. Law and Society Review, 47(1), 37−71.

Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.