Social structure

Introduction Culture harmonizes stack behavior and at the a comparable time creates barriers between distinguishable groups. Donnan and Wilson (1999) contract argued that borders of cultures and identities make up the least studied and understood phenomena of international borders and admit that borders be al carriages descriptions since they are illogical constructions based on cultural convention. Similarly, most of the organizations meet the divers(prenominal) consequences of culture in our modern globalizing world the cooperation of singulars, groups, and organizations is a vital content for any social entity and largely depends on their cultural background.Individualism is an attitude that emphasizes the grandness of individual everyplace the group identity and socialism is the opposite proclivity that emphasizes the importance of we identity over I identity (Hofstede, 1980). Individualism VS collectivism Just as Western businesses have intensified their efforts to learn from Asian organizations, so too has there been a rise in enquiry on cross-cultural differences between the two regions. Asian and Western cultures have been distinguished along a variety of characteristics (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994 Triandis, 1994).However, it is the dimension of individualism and collectivism that has received the most attention by psychologists specializing in cross-cultural research. heathenish values of individualism and collectivism differ in their relative fury on emancipation vs. interdependence with wizs group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In individualist cultures, masses are viewed as independent and possessing a unique pattern of traits that distinguish them from otherwise people (Markus & Kitayama, 1994).In contrast to such independence and uniqueness, people in collectivized cultures view the self as congenitally interdependent with the group to which they belong. Therefore, whereas people in individualistic cultures often ca-ca global and ab stract descriptions of themselves (e. g. , I am optimistic), people in state-controlled cultures might ask how they could possibly describe themselves in the absence of education about a particular situation (Bachnik, 1994).To someone from a collectivistic culture, a relatively abstract description of the person excepttocks push through artificial because it implies that he or she is the same regardless of context (Cousins, 1989). whiz of the most important consequences of these divergent views of the self is the degree of conformity that is spy in social settings. A meta-analysis of studies using Aschs (1956) line fancy task suggested that Asians demonstrated a fast(a)er tendency to conform than Ameri brush offs (Bond & Smith, 1996). In fact, the very concept of conformity whitethorn have different connotations in different cultures.While conformity is often viewed negatively in an individualistic culture, uniqueness can be viewed as a form of deviance and conformity ass ociated with union in a much(prenominal) than collectivistic culture (Kim & Markus, 1999). Because the persons identity is jamly linked to his/her social group in collectivistic cultures, the primary goal of the person is not to maintain independence from others, but to promote the interests of the group (Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, & Diaz-Guerrero, 1976). In contrast, most people in individualistic cultures assume that their identity is a direct consequence of their unique traits.Because the norms of individualistic cultures stress being true to ones self and ones unique set of needs and desires (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998), the person may be encouraged to resist social pressure if it contradicts his/her own values and p citations. Thus, people in individualistic cultures can be expected to be ordered in their views and maintain them in the face of opposition, while people in collectivistic cultures might consider the failure to yield to others as atro cious and inconsiderate.In collectivistic cultures, self-esteem is not derived from characteristic behavior or from transaction attention to ones own unique abilities. There is greater emphasis on meeting a shared specimen so as to maintain harmony in ones descent to the group (Wink, 1997). People in collectivistic cultures are therefore not motivated to stand out from their group by competitive acts of accomplishment or even making positive statements about themselves (Kitayama, Markus, & Lieberman, 1995). Instead, there is a tendency toward self improvement motivated by concern for the healthy being of the larger social group.Whereas members of individualistic cultures strive for special science by achieving beyond the norms of the group, collectivists are more motivated to understand the norms for exploit in the particular context so as to meet that standard (Azuma, 1994). Therefore, one might expect groups defined by collectivistic norms to be spirited in collaboration a nd achievement of collective goals, whereas groups with individualistic norms may have greater variability in performance among its individual members. gamey context to diminished context cultures In todays business relations, its a gloomy world after all.As more companies turn towards global markets, overlords are conclusion themselves in foreign locales, wheeling and dealing like never before. However, the gravestone to effective conversation between countries is an understanding of from each one others culture, especially a working knowledge of how each society conveys meaning. First used by author Edward Hall, the expressions high context and low context are labels denoting inherent cultural differences between societies. advanced-context and Low-context communication refers to how much speakers rely on things other than spoken communication to convey meaning.Hall states that in communication, individuals face many more sensory(a) cues than they are able to fully proc ess. In each culture, members have been supplied with ad hoc filters that allow them to centralize only on what society has deemed important. In general, cultures that favor low-context communication will pay more attention to the literal meanings of words than to the context surrounding them. It is important to remember that every individual uses twain high-context and low-context communication it is not simply a matter of choosing one over the other.Often, the types of relationships we have with others and our circumstances will state the extent to which we rely more on literal or implied meanings. Novelist Amy Tan describes the differences in cultural communication this way An American business executive may say, Lets make a deal, and the Chinese manager may reply, Is your son interested in knowledge about your widget business? Each to his or her own purpose, each with his or her own linguistic path. When individuals from high-context and low-context cultures collaborate, there are often difficulties that emit during the exchange of selective information.These problems can be separated into differences concerning direction, quantity and quality. For example, employees from high-context cultures like China and France share very specific and extensive information with their in-group members (good friends, families, close co-workers, etc). In comparison, low-context cultures like the United States and Germany prefer to limit communication to smaller, more select groups of people, sharing only that information which is necessary. lofty- mise en scene CommunicationHall states Most of the information is both in the physical context or initialized in the person. ? Knowledge is situational, relative ? Less is verbally explicit or written or formally expressed ? More internalized understandings of what is communicated (ex in-jokes) ? Often used in long term, well-established relationships Decisions and activities centralize around personal face-to-fac e communication, ? often around a central, arbitrary figure ? Strong awareness of who is accepted/belongs vs. outsiders AssociationRelationships depend on trust, build up slowly, and are stable. ? How things get done depends on relationships with people and attention to group process. ? Ones identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work). Interaction ? High use of nonverbal elements voice tone, facial expression, gestures, and ? Eye movement admit significant parts of conversation. ? Verbal subject matter is indirect one negotiation around the point and embellishes it. ? Communication is seen as an art form-a way of benignant someone. ? Disagreement is personalized.One is sensitive to conflict expressed in anothers nonverbal communication. troth either must be solved before work can progress or must be avoided. encyclopedism ? Multiple sources of information are used. Thinking is deductive, proceeds from general to specific. ? Learning occurs by send-off observing other s as they model or demonstrate and then practicing. ? Groups are preferred for reading and problem solving. ? Accuracy is valued. How well something is learned is important. High context cultures are more common in the eastern nations than in western, and in countries with low racial diversity.Cultures where the group is valued over the individual promote group reliance. High context cultures have a strong sense of tradition and history, and change little over time, such as tribal and native societies. For instance, the French assume that the listener knows everything. Therefore, they may speculate that Americans think they are stupid because Americans will habitually explain everything to their counterparts. occasion president Jimmy Carter understood the importance of high-context communication with his colleagues from Israel and Egypt during the peace negotiation at Camp David.When Prime Minister Begin was about to relinquish the unsatisfactory negotiations, Carter presented h im with pictures of the three heads of state, with the names of each of Begins grandchildren written on the photographs. The heyday minister repeated the names of his grandchildren out loud as he looked at the pictures, reflecting on the importance of the peace negotiations to his grandchildrens futures. Carter recognized that a high-context reference to future generations would induce the prime minister to return to the negotiations. Low Context CommunicationHall states The mass of information is vested in the explicit code (message). ? Rule lie ? More knowledge is public, external, and accessible. ? Shorter duration of communications ? Knowledge is transferable ? Task-centred. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done and the division of responsibilities. Association ? Relationships mystify and end quickly. Many people can be inside ones plenty circles boundary is not clear. ? Things get done by following procedures and gainful attention to the goal. ? Ones identity is rooted in oneself and ones accomplishments.Social structure is decentralized right goes further down (is not concentrated at the top). Interaction ? sum is carried more by words than by nonverbal means. ? Verbal message is direct one spells things out exactly. ? Communication is seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas, and opinions. ? Disagreement is depersonalized. One withdraws from conflict with another and gets on with the task. Focus is on rational answers, not personal ones. Learning ? One source of information is used to develop knowledge. ? Thinking is inductive, proceeds from specific to general.Focus is on detail. ? Learning occurs by following explicit directions and explanations of others. ? An individual orientation is preferred for learning and problem solving. ? Speed is valued. How efficiently something is learned is important. An individual from a high context culture has to adapt, and/or be accommodated when shifting to a low context culture. High context cultures expect small close-knit groups, where professional and personal life is interrelated. Therefore, a high context individual is more likely to ask questions than attempt to work out a solution independently.References Brockner, J. (2003). Unpacking country effects On the need to operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. Research in organizational behavior, (P 333367). Flynn, F, & Chatman, J. (2001). Strong cultures and innovation Oxymoron or opportunity? In S. Cartwright (Ed. ), internationalistic handbook of organizational culture and climate. Wink, P. (1997). Beyond ethnic differences Contextualizing the influence of ethnicity on individualism and collectivism. Journal of Social Issues, (P 329349).