The readings indicate the obvious, that different cultures communicate and understand people differently. Whether by using and understanding different gestures and phrases, or by prioritizing different people, members of culture fall on different points along the dimensions listed in the Figuring Foreigners Out reading.
I generally agree with the readings, that people and cultures score differently along the dimensions, but I do find it very hard to place a realistic quantity on any of the dimensions in the Hofstede analysis. To analyze a culture as a whole strikes me as futile, and to not account for the variance among the people seems to yield too strong of a consensus with the score the country is given. I do appreciate the ability to roughly compare countries, but am not too sure that it would have any great use beyond personal development (eg, any policy decisions that could be effected with this information).
I would not ally myself too closely to the “official” score of the countries so much as accurate anecdotes about the relevant areas in the country. If I were to describe myself and my hometown, we would score right about the middle on the individual-collective axis, maybe 70% monochronic, almost entirely internal personal control, and employing very high context communication. Instead of the Hofstede tool, I would prefer to rely on the verbal impression of Greece, specifically around Athens, Bartholomio, and Thessaloniki. According to Smaragda’s insight, Greece would score just a little bit more collectivist, probably 50-50 poly- and mono-chronic. Generally, a Greek would consider himself controlled by external forces, and communicates with high context.
Comments