supercase alex perry, cole boyer, lindsay jimeson, karen eberle, michael grasso
TRANSCRIPT
Supercase
Alex Perry, Cole Boyer, Lindsay Jimeson, Karen Eberle, Michael
Grasso
Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
• Gathered statistical data from 100,000 employees of IBM around world to determine values on which cultures vary
• Each Dimension described as a continuum, with distinct cultures classified somewhere along continuum
Individualism-Collectivism• addresses how people define themselves and their
relationships with others• Individualistic cultures:– Consider individual most important in any social setting– Stress independence rather than dependence– Reward individual achievement– Value each individuals uniqueness
• Collectivist cultures– Think goals of group are more important than individual
needs– Obligation to the group is the norm– Self is defined in relation to others– Focus on cooperation rather than competition
Uncertainty Avoidance
• Extent to which people in a culture are made nervous by situations they perceive as unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable
• High Uncertainty Avoidance Cultures:– Seek to avoid ambiguity– Maintain strict codes of behavior and support absolute truths– Workplace typified by rules, precisions, punctuality
• Low Uncertainty Avoidance Cultures:– Accept ambiguity and lack of structure– More inclined to take risks, innovate, and value outside the
box thinking– Tend to work hard only when needed– United States low uncertainty avoidance
Power Distance• Extent to which people with little power in society consider inequity
normal and acceptable• High Power Distance Cultures:
– Accept power differences as natural and inevitable– Greater centralization of power and more importance place on
status– Tend to have large number of supervisors, hierarchy, and
decision making at top end of hierarchy only– Tend to have wide salary gap between high and low hierarchy
• Low Power Distance Cultures– People higher in hierarchy not assumed to be superior– People lower in hierarchy can achieve power through hard work– Us is low power distance
• Becoming increasingly higher though
Masculinity-Femininity
• Focus on Biological sex and what is considered sex appropriate behavior
• Masculine Cultures:– Use reality of biological sex in creation of distinct roles for men and
women– Men expected to be assertive, ambitious, competitive– Women expected to be supportive, nurturing, deferent– Women have hard time achieving workplace equality– US is masculine country
• Feminine Cultures– Men and women equally permitted to be assertive, deferent,
competitive, nurturing– Focus on interpersonal relationships and concern for weak– Manifest consensus seeking
Long-Term Short-Term Orientation
• Are you focused on the present or the future• Long Term Orientation:– Associated with thrift, savings, perseverance, willingness to
subordinate oneself to achieve a goal– Employees have strong work ethic and view distant goals
• Short Term Orientation– Spend money to keep up with the Joneses and prefer quick results to
long term gain– Employees seek immediate pay and are less willing to sacrifice in the
short run to achieve in the long run
Predicted Outcome Value Theory
• General Focus: Predicting communication and future relational development from judgments made during initial encounters
• Primary goal in first encounters: Maximize relational outcomes– In first encounters, individuals asses predicted
outcome value of relationship
Predicted Outcome Value
• Will this relationship produce positive or negative outcomes for me
• Reward/cost analysis– Positive outcomes: Develop relationship– Negative outcomes: Avoid relationship
Bases for POV
• Proximity/Access– Will you see them again– People don’t form relationships with people they don’t meet
• Physical Attractiveness– Is the person attractive
• Similarity– How similar are we
• Type of Potential relationship– What is the relationship potential
• Uncertainty– More uncertain the lower the POV
Predictions of POV
• As POV Increases– Quantity of verbal communication increases– Intimacy of communication content increases– Nonverbal expressions of affiliation increase
• If Low POV– Restrict and end initial conversation– Maintain first impression
• If High POV– Communicate to maximize outcomes– Potential for relationship development– First impression more likely to change through continued
interaction
Face Negotiation Theory
• General Focus: Explain and predict cultural differences associated with conflict management as a function of differences in face concerns
• Individuals try to balance own positive and negative face needs while attending to partners face needs– Face: Desired self image– Positive face: Need to be liked, appreciated, and
admired– Negative Face: desire to act freely without imposition
from others
Face Negotiation Theory
• Cultural influences on face concerns:– Individualism: stronger concern for self-face• Self face concern
– Individuals must consider their own positive and negative face needs
– Collectivism: stronger concern for other-face, mutual face• Other face concern
– Partner’s positive and negative face needs
Conflict Styles• Avoidance
– Withdraw from or seek to evade conflict• Accommodation
– Cooperate with others/ typically concede• Competition
– Highly assertive and lacking in cooperation• Compromise
– Moderate concern for self and others, somewhat assertive and cooperative, have to sacrifice
• Collaboration– High regard for self and others, seek new solutions without making sacrifices
• Passive Aggressive• Emotional expression• Third Party Help
Groupthink
• dysfunctional way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action
• Groupthink represents failure of group to demonstrate critical thinking
Three Antecedent conditions
• Cohesion– Degree of connection or solidarity between group members
• Structural flaws– Group insulation-group isolated from larger world– Biased leadership-leader states preference and group members
follow suit– Lack of procedural norms-don’t have or don’t follow procedural
norms– Homogeneity-similarity
• Situational characteristics– Groupthink more likely to occur in times of high stress
• Operating constraints, threats, legal requirements, time pressures
– Moral Dilemmas • Groupthink likely if alternatives are unethical
Symptoms of Groupthink• Overestimation of group-group members have inflated
view of group’s abilities– Invulnerability-group wont or can’t fail– Inherent morality-group is good, group decisions will be good
• Close mindedness-polarized thinking, or viewing the world in extremes– Stereotyping-demonizing other groups and their leaders– Collective rationalization-group members justify decisions by
talking themselves into them• Pressures toward uniformity-Individual group members
suppress critical thinking– Self-Censorship-group members keep mouth shut when
experiencing doubt– Illusion of unanimity-group members perceive a consensus,
even when one isn’t present
To avoid groupthink
• should avoid having the leader state a preference, • set up several independent subgroups to study
the problem and propose solutions• discuss what is happening in the group with
people outside of the group• invite outsiders into the group• assign someone to be a devils advocate• monitor the group for symptoms• take time between initial decision and
confirmation of the decision to analyze the decision critically