164 Part 2 The Cultural Environment of Global Markets The pattern displayed is not definitive, only suggestive. Not every culture fits every dimension of culture in a precise way. However, the synthesis is useful in many ways. Pri-marily, it gives us a simple yet logical way to think about many of the cultural differences described in Chapters 4 and 5. For example, American culture is low context, individual-istic (IDV), low power distance (PDI), obviously close to English, monochronic time–ori-ented, linguistically direct, and foreground focused,100 and it achieves efficiency through competition; therefore, it is categorized hereafter in this book as an information-oriented culture. Alternatively, Japanese culture is high context, collectivistic, high power distance, far from English, polychronic (in part), linguistically indirect, and background focused, and it achieves efficiency through reduction of transaction costs; therefore, it is properly categorized as a relationship-oriented culture. All these differences exist even though the United States and Japan are both high-income democracies. Both cultures do achieve effi-ciency but through different emphases. The American business system uses competition, whereas the Japanese depend more on reducing transaction costs. What has been come to be known as “relationship marketing” is 55 percent more effective, interestingly, outside the United States in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).101 The most managerially useful aspect of this synthesis of cultural differences is that it allows us to make predictions about unfamiliar cultures. Managers who can do so—and manage uncertainty well—have been shown to be much more effective in cross-cultural situations.102 Reference to the three metrics available gives us some clues about how con-sumers and/or business partners will behave and think. Hofstede has provided scores for 78 countries and regions, and we have included them in the appendix to this chapter. Find a country on his lists, and you have some information about that market and/or person. One might expect Trinidad to be an information-oriented culture and Russia a relationship-oriented culture, and so on. Moreover, measures of linguistic distance (any language can be used as the focal one, not just English) are available for every country and, indeed, every person. Thus, we would expect that someone who speaks Javanese as a first language to be relationship oriented. In closing, we are quite encouraged by the publication of the important book Culture Matters.103 We obviously agree with the sentiment of the title and hope that the book will help rekindle the interest in culture’s pervasive influences that Max Weber and others initi-ated so long ago. 100Richard E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought (New York: The Free Press, 2003). 101Stephen A. Samaha, Joshua T. Beck, and Robert W. Palmatier, “The Role of Culture in International Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 78 (2014), pp. 78–98. 102C. Lakshman, “Bicultural and Attributional Complexity: Cross-cultural Leadership Effectiveness,” Journal of International Business Studies 44 (2013), pp. 922– 40. 103Lawrence I. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (eds.), Culture Matters (New York: Basic Books, 2000). Exhibit 5.7 Dimensions of Culture: A Synthesis Information-Oriented (IO) Relationship-Oriented (RO) Low context Individualism Low power distance Bribery less common Low distance from English Linguistic directness Monochronic time Internet Focus on the foreground Competition High context Collectivism High power distance (including gender) Bribery more common* High distance from English Linguistic indirectness Polychronic time Face-to-face Background Reduce transaction costs *We note that Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Chile do not fit all the rules here. Most would agree that all four are relationship-oriented cultures.
Cateora_InternationalMarketing_17e
To see the actual publication please follow the link above