Most of the communities or groups of people have their own identifying cultural background. Their setup of the society majorly influences the behaviors, attitudes, morals, ethics of a person. The term culture has several different meanings and attributes associated with it depending on the geographical location or the society (Mironenko and Sorokin, 2018, p. 339). According to Geert Hofstede, culture is “the programming of the human mind by which one group of people distinguishes itself from other groups” (Taras, 2017, p. 2). The paper will compare and contrast the cultures of Saudi Arabia and Australia based on the masculinity versus femininity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural framework.
Masculinity relies on assertiveness, achievement, success reward in the society indicating competitiveness amongst the individuals. On the contrary, femininity displays a preference for the value of life, cooperation, caring for the needy, and humility. From the business perspective, masculinity refers to toughness, while femininity can be termed as tender. On the other hand, the uncertainty avoidance dimension indicates the extent to which people feel uneasy concerning uncertainty.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Framework
Geert Hofstede developed Hofstede’s cultural dimension framework around 1970s. The dimensions established indicate the effects of culture on the values of the people in a given society. Even though some scholars believe the framework has some drawbacks (Beugelsdijk and Welzel, 2018, pp.1469). According to Sajadi and Badreh (2019, p. 123), some of the limitations associated with the models include using countries as units for investigating the difference in culture is not appropriate. Additionally, the number of models is insufficient to explore the cultural aspects of the people, and lastly, the usage of questionnaires to study culture.
The major shortcoming of the framework is that one company did the research making the sample size narrow, increasing the chances of bias of the study. Furthermore, some countries have several cultures, making it challenging to apply the cultural models in such cases. Despite the model’s weaknesses, understanding the framework is useful in the business world as it allows the managers to identify misunderstandings that come because of cultural differences (Rodríguez-Rivero et al., 2018, p.155). Moreover, during the recruitment of new employees, the employer can choose individuals with a strong cultural fit to enhance the performance output.
Comparison
Masculinity versus Femininity
Saudi Arabia’s culture embraces masculinity and some degree of femininity, whereby the society is moderate, and there is a relationship between the masculine and the feminine. According to the findings of Hofstede’s research, the dimension score is about 60, indicating a good drive towards achievement (Al-Hilabi and Khan, 2021, p.448). In this society, men are respected and take high roles in the community and business as well. The masculine understand that people must work to live, making them more aggressive in their businesses, while the feminine culture believes in lives to work.
Australia has a dimension score of about 61, showing a significant effect of masculinity in their culture. In such cases, both men and women are success-oriented, making them focus on achieving good results in their endeavors (George and Loosemore, 2019, p.425). There is a clear distinction in gender roles, and males are expected to take the lead and be assertive in every situation. In an organization, higher ranks are favored to men as well as their remuneration package. The masculine culture is influence by freedom and the need to win in society.
In both countries, cultures are the same based on the masculinity versus femininity dimension. The countries learn more about masculine culture than feminine society having well-outlined gender roles. Individuals are motivated to work for success and leading to high competition in every sector in both cultures. The main goal is to win in every event an individual is undertaking since they value achievement.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Saudi Arabia has a dimensional score of 80, meaning they are more concerned about the uncertainties in their culture. The fear of ambiguity is dominant, making most people careful and watchful of other cultures. The Saudi Arabians believe in they say ‘time is money they always work hard, and they are uncomfortable with unclear circumstances. They adopt and implement strict rules, policies, laws, and regulations to control everything and avoid uncertainty. Their behavior, religion, and communication are the key cultural areas that show uncertainty avoidance; for example, they strictly follow the Islamic religion, like having a prayer five times a day is a routine that makes them comfortable with what is happening and that which will follow.
In Australian culture, people are slightly open to trying emerging ideas. Having a score of around 51 from Hofstede’s research proves that most individuals can quickly adapt to changes that come during their lives. Australians are open to change and are ready to try new ideas. This is brought by their low uncertainty avoidance, making them good in business investment since they are not scared of failures and associated risks.
Overall, Australians moderately value uncertainty avoidance, unlike Saudi Arabia, where the culture is sensitive about other traditions. Australians can adjust and accommodate the doubts of the future since they do not have strict laws that bind them to a specific behavior. At the same time, Saudi Arabia citizens are more rigid to changes based on their strong religion and other laws. The two nations have a significant difference in culture as per the model of uncertainty avoidance. Finally, the social beliefs of the two cultures have some considerable variation, and at the same time, there are traditions they share income like masculine society. The business environment in both countries depends on the cultural background, and the decisions are influenced by cultural setup.
Reference List
Al-Hilabi, A.S., and Khan, M. (2021) ‘Evolution of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in Saudi Arabia’s work culture‘. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(14), pp.444-452. Web.
Beugelsdijk, S. and Welzel, C. (2018) ‘Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart’. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 49(10), pp.1469-1505. Web.
George, M. and Loosemore, M. (2019) ‘Site operatives’ attitudes towards traditional masculinity ideology in the Australian construction industry’. Construction Management and Economics, 37(8), pp.419-432. Web.
Mironenko, I.A. and Sorokin, P.S. (2018) ‘Seeking for the definition of “culture”: current concerns and their implications. A comment on Gustav Jahoda’s article “Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture”’. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52(2), pp.331-340. Web.
Rodríguez‐Rivero, R., Ortiz‐Marcos, I., Ballesteros‐Sánchez, L. and Romero, J. (2018) ‘The opportunity to improve psychological competences of project managers in international businesses’. Psychology & Marketing, 35(2), pp.150-159. Web.
Sajadi, H. and Badreh, M. (2019) ‘A critique of theory of dimensions of national culture, concentrating on book “Cultures and Organizations: the software of the mind”,’ Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences, 19(10), pp.113-135. Web.
Taras, V. (2017) ‘Cultural dimensions, Hofstede’. The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, pp.1-5. Web.