Discussion Post #2

[Grayson Charlton]

Article Summaries
Figuring foreigners out is about realizing that people from different cultures don’t all think, communicate, or behave the same way. Things like how direct someone is, how they view time, how much they rely on context or body language, and whether they prioritize the individual or the group all vary by culture. A lot of confusion across cultures happens because we assume our own way of doing things is normal, when in reality what's normal completely changes depending on cultural context. The goal with figuring foreigners out isn’t to label or generalize people. The goal is to better understand why behaviors that seem odd or rude to us may actually make sense in other cultural situation.
Hofstede’s model explains culture by breaking it into measurable dimensions based on national values. Using data from IBM employees across many countries, he identified patterns in how societies differ at work. His main dimensions include power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long vs short term orientation, and indulgence vs restraint. The point of the model is to compare countries and explain why people in different places approach things differenlty. 

Do I predominantly agree with these assessments?
Yes. As an international business major, I have studied Hofstede's dimensions, cultural context, and business culture across the world, and I agree with these assessments. One of the biggest reasons companies fail when entering new countries is a lack of cultural understanding, not a bad product or strategy. People from different cultures genuinely do not think, communicate, or behave the same way, and assuming they do leads to consistent problems. Through studying cultural intelligence (CQ), I’ve learned that success abroad depends on adapting how you lead, communicate, and build trust. You can't just copy and paste a business model in a new country. For example, informal networks matter way more in parts of Southern Europe like Spain and Italy, where trust and personal connections often drive decisions more than formal rules or contracts. In contrast, other parts of Europe rely more heavily on structured processes and institutional clarity. Companies that ignore these differences often struggle because they misunderstand how work actually gets done. 

Is there anything I find problematic?
Yes. While classical frameworks like Hofstede are foundational to how we understand culture, they treat culture as fixed, uniform, and stuck within national borders. That assumption no longer holds. What I’ve learned through my studies is that culture today is dynamic, multi-level, and constantly shaped by interaction. Globalization, migration, multinational firms, and technology mean people operate within multiple cultural systems at once. Research supports this shift: culture varies more within nations than between them, individual adaptability (CQ) matters more than nationality, and cultural differences can be a source of learning and innovation rather than cause problems. Hofstede’s work is useful as a baseline, but its too limited for understanding today’s interconnected world, where culture is fluid and evolving rather than stable and bound to borders.

Relating to China vs US:
These ideas clearly apply when comparing the U.S. and China. U.S. culture tends to be more individualistic, direct, and low-context, with a strong emphasis on personal initiative and explicit communication. Chinese culture places more value on hierarchy, relationships, indirect communication, and long-term orientation. Understanding these differences is essential for my upcoming travels because applying American attitudes in China can immediately place me as more of an outsider than I already am. Studying these contrasts emphasizes why cultural intelligence and adaptability matter.