How Culture Differ

High Power Distance Cultures

Power is concentrated in the hands of a few and there is a great difference in the power held by these people and that held by the ordinary citizen. In high power distance cultures, direct confrontation and assertiveness may be viewed negatively, especially if directed at a superior. You are taught to have great respect for authority; people in these culture see authority as desirable and beneficial and challenges to authority are generally not welcomed.e.g. In one study Asian adolescents (high power distance culture) had greater difficulty discussing problems with their parents than did Caucasians (low power distance culture). In high power distance cultures, there're a great power distance between students and teachers; students are expected to be modest, polite, and totally respectful. High power distance cultures rely more on symbols of power. For example, titles (Dr., Professor, Chef, Inspector) are more importance in high power distance cultures. Failure to include these in forms of address is a serious breach of etiquette.

Low Power Distance Cultures

In low power distance cultures there is a general feeling of equality that is consistent with acting assertively, and so you are expected to confront a friend, partner or supervisor assertively. In low power distance cultures, there are certain distrust for authority; it's seen as a kind of necessary evil that should be limited as much as possible. This difference in attitudes toward authority can be seen right in the classroom. In low power distance power cultures students are expected to demonstrate their knowledge and command of the subject matter, participate in discussions with the teacher and even challenge the teacher. Low power distance cultures rely less on symbols of power, and less of a problem is created if you fail to use a respectful title. But even in low power distance cultures you may create problem if, for example, you call a medical doctor, police captain, military officer or professor Ms. or Mr.

Masculine Cultures

In a highly "masculine" culture men are viewed as assertive, oriented to material success, and strong; women on the other hand are viewed as modest, focused on the quality of life and tender. Masculine cultures emphasize success and socialize their people to be assertive, ambitious and competitive. Members of masculine cultures are thus more likely to confront conflicts directly and to competitively fight out any differences; they're more likely to emphasize win- lose conflict strategies. Organization also can be viewed in terms of masculinity of femininity. Masculine organizations emphasize competitiveness aggressiveness. They focus on the bottom line and reward their workers on the basic of their contribution to the organization.

Feminine Cultures

In highly "feminine" culture, both men and women are encouraged to be modest, oriented to maintaining the quality of life and tender. Feminine cultures emphasize the quality of life and socialize their people to be modest and to emphasize close interpersonal relationship. Members of feminine cultures are thus more likely to emphasize compromise and negotiation in resolving conflict; they are more likely to seek win- win solutions. Not surprisingly, people in feminine notion score significantly lower on depression levels. Feminine organization are less competitive and less aggressive. They are more likely to emphasize worker satisfaction and rewards their workers on the basic of need; those who have large families, for example, may get better raises than the single people, even if the singles have contributed more to the organization.

Individual and Collective Orientation
This aspect of culture refers to the extent to which the individual's goals and desires or the group's goals and desire are given greater importance. Individual and collective tendencies are not mutually exclusive; it is not "all or nothing" but rather a matter of emphasis.
Distinctions between in- group members and out- group members are extremely important in collectivist cultures. In individualistic cultures, which prize a person's distinctive qualities, the in- group versus out- group distinctions is likely to be less important.

High Context Cultures
A high- context culture is one in which much of the information in communications is contained in the context or in the person, for example, information that is shared through previous communication, through assumptions that participants hold about each other, and through shared experiences. The information is not explicitly stated in the verbal message.
High- context cultures are also collectivist cultures. These cultures place great emphasis on personal relationship and oral agreements.
Members of high- context cultures spend lots of time getting to know each other before any important transactions take place. Because of this prior personal knowledge, a great deal of information is shared and therefore does not have to be explicitly stated.
To the members of this cultures, what is assumed is a vital part of the communication transaction. For example, silence is highly valued. People in this cultures are reluctant to say no for fear of giving offense and causing the person to lose face. For example, it is necessary to determine when the Japanese executive's yes means yes and when it means no.

Low Context Cultures
A low context cultures is one in which much of most information is explicitly stated in the verbal message, as well as in formal transactions in written(contract) form.
Low context cultures are also individualistic cultures. These cultures place less emphasis on personal relationship and more emphasis on written, explicit explanation. For example, on the written contracts in business transactions.
To low context cultures' members, what is omitted creates ambiguity; this ambiguity is to be eliminated by explicit and direct communication.
For people in this cultures, it is easy to interpret the reluctance which is direct- to say no when someone means no- as a weakness or as an unwillingness to confront reality.