Cross-Cultural Management: Reflection
Part. 1 of 2:
Traditional Aboriginal Culture and Traditional Chinese Culture
This reflective report will attempt to compare and contrast between Traditional Australian Aboriginal Culture and Traditional Chinese Culture. Ferraro & Briody (2013) defines culture as the shared perceptions among group of two or more people, their beliefs, values and behavioural patterns, which ultimately shape their way of life. I will analyse the two cultures around Hodstede’s cultural dimensions, Collectivism. Collectivism determines the degree of close-knit characteristic of the group (Hofstede n.d.). The insight this framework provides could be use as a guide ...view middle of the document...
The traditional Australian Aboriginal are nomadic in nature, they do not farm nor cultivate the soil. Their survival purely dependent upon food gathering and hunting, thus its necessary to move from places to places. They live in large family groups in which everyone is in someway related or connected to one another. There are no chief that led the group. Their family structure and kinship system promotes Collectivism and social harmony. The structure outlines individual’s responsibilities to other members and the group. Such as, caring for the aged and the orphaned as well as debt and misdeed of other individuals (Welch, D n.d). The kinship structure is so complex, even Census failed to collects coherent and interpretable data (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Morphy 2004).
In many cases, the whole family are responsible for nurturing and educating the young. This amplifies the value of family and collectivism in Aborigines at a very young age (Bourke 1993). The matured are responsible for the physical need of the elder and the elder in turn responsible for educating the young (Nelson & Allison 2000). These reinforce the Wholeness principles of Aboriginal Being; the notion of one could not exist without others. Which is why Aborigines will most likely to present issue from a collectivist point of view, which may influence the collective family group or community as a whole (Pattel 2007).
The above reading conveys similar values but for different purposes within both cultures. Both traditional Chinese and Aborigines valued family, high collectivism and social harmony. Resulted in multi generation dwelling together, both kin and relatives. The difference between the two cultures is the purpose of such gathering. The Chinese bond together for dependency and security against external threats (Fei 1946). The Aborigines band together for passing on traditional value and survival need, because it is more efficient and safer to hunts in groups than alone (Pattel 2007).
I am Chinese and I lived in family groups during my younger years, that consist of great-great-grandparents to far-cousins from both side of the family as well as other relative, related merely through being of neighbour in the old country, whom had assisted in the nurturing process of any family member. For this reason we are more likely to consider those whom done us good as part of our families, and we tends to speaks for the best interest of the family rather than for oneself. Even our dinning ritual characterise collectivism. Instead of having our own dish, we would share a variety of mains and the eating will not commence until everybody is seated, regardless of age or rank.
Hodstede’s cultural dimensions are useful in understanding the roots of certain cultural dynamic but with limitations. The complexity of today’s world calls for constant change. The above outlines are superficial, stereotypical at best. In order to succeed in cross-cultural management we...