Within Hofstede’s 6 dimensions model, masculinity stuck out to me. Because Russia is very strict, it makes sense to me that the society is patriarchal. Rarely have I seen Putin act any way other than calm, collected, and stern. There is an air of competitiveness within Russia and that contributes to its high power distance. The patriarchy is very prominent from an early developmental stage in society; this translates into organizational settings as well (Hofstede Insights, 2020). Compared to a feminine society where you care about what you do, masculinity is more about being the best and creating status with in the hierarchal society.

When looking at the map, it would appear that Russia is more feminine on the scale, and I was curious as to why this is. Russia clearly has a high power distance. According to Hofstede Insights (2020), the masculinity score is 36, which is low. Why? Because achievements are often not bragged about. Russians are withheld as subordinates especially, but in positions of power, they are outwardly dominant. When I think about Putin and how he carries himself, modesty also emanates. But there is no questioning his masculine power.

Masculine societies are dangerous because it means that there is a separation of equality between genders- ahem- sexism. Gender equality is a pipe dream. In the image below, you will see a clear depiction of gender in Russia. Ebel (2019) writes about this photoshoot for International Women’s Day in Russia- represented by this image. While there are currently 45,000 women currently serving in Russia’s armed forces, this picture chose only men in uniform. The women here would easily be described as “girly” and “pretty.” These are feminine terms and  this is the gender trade-off.

 

 

 

Ebel, F. (2019). In Russia, gender equality still a long way off. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/70499d77d5bd4ea3b4462d32907420d4

Hofstede Insights. (2020). What about Russia? Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/russia/

Penn State. (2020). OLEAD 410: Leadership in a global context. The Pennsylvania State University. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2075490/modules/items/29697220

 

For this post, I have decided to compare and contrast social customs between Latin America and North America. I hope to bring to light as to why it is important for those in increasingly technologically advanced and therefore global workplaces to be aware of how others’ customs align with or differ from their own. Though customs differ a great deal across countries, is important to recognize that as humans, more things bring us together than set us apart. Some concepts I would like to touch on are pleasantries, space, and privacy.

Both Latin America and North America exchange pleasantries; most in either country shake hands. North Americans are okay with a quick greeting, whereas the latter are most likely to engage on a more personal level. Latin Americans are also most likely to ask about family health, whereas North Americans are most likely more inept to get down to business.

As far as space goes, it is more common for Latin American businesspeople to speak in close quarters, whereas North Americans do not usually take well to people who invade their personal space (Moran et al., 2014). Furthermore, North American businessmen don’t typically embrace like they do in Latin America.

The last is privacy. In Latin America, privacy is a common denominator. In my eyes, Americans are relatively private, but learning about Latin America, it seems like the latter is more private. According to Moran (et al., 2014), Latin Americas close their doors and build high walls around their houses, especially when the house belongs to an important person. In America, it is normal for neighbors to stop by, but it is not customary for Latin America. “Personal security is very important, so the more affluent may have bodyguards and a security system” (Moran et al., 2014).

Themes and patterns between countries differ, but it is also important to acknowledge cross-cultural communications. Where collaborations are concerned, it’s important to recognize miscommunication and assumptions about either country (Moran et al., 2014). Acknowledging these differences will help a workplace learn to respect each other. Furthermore, these differences can be celebrated in a multicultural workplace and across technological platforms in the workplace.

 

 

 

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences (9th ed.). NY: Routledge.

I personally haven’t been exposed to the full scope of cross-cultural synergy, but I can imagine that because there are so many different cultural norms and expectations, synergy can seem like a distant dream. I chose to write about cross-cultural synergy because I think it’s important for everyone to know. To get into this I’ve coincidentally found an article about this type of cultural management where the author uses Saudi Arabia as an example. 

 

Nancy Adler first wrote about the term “cultural synergy” in 1980 when a North American executive wrote an observational memo while visiting Saudi Arabia. He wrote that at their headquarters, people were “unsatisfactorily dressed”, their vehicles were irregularly parked, and their company cars were all dirty (Adler, 1980). In short, this guy held that North Americans were to be the example that employees at this headquarters should follow. To me, this kind of seemed like a lack of knowledge of another culture. (Mind you, this was also in 1980, so there is a wide gap of our cultural understanding as it was.)

 

Our organizations are becoming increasingly multicultural. And in the birth of a new technologically advanced society, businesses need to create and maintain an environment where every culture can thrive. In other words, if you don’t acknowledge the need for organizational reform, cross-cultural synergy will never be achieved. 

 

Nancy outlines three assumptions made by American management that I am certain can still be applied to American companies: ethnocentrism, assimilation, and primacy of domestic operations (Adler, 1980). Ethnocentrism in business means that Americans have presented a model of management that they believe is the only correct one. Adler (1980) writes that while Americans have largely been successful in these models, they have also neglected to realize the negative impacts that that particular model may have in a different cultural context. 

 

Which brings us to assimilation, the assumption that because most employees share the same environment, they all respond the same to similar management styles (Adler, 1980). This lens is negative, but that should go without saying! The last assumption is that domestic sales are more than sales outside of the country. Adler (1980) writes that international firms actually dominate domestic ones. 

 

Even in 1980, Adler saw the importance of transnational organizations and how they fit in the future. Tackling the assumptions is not an overnight affair, but the first step is to become aware of how bias and assumption can hinder progression. 

Adler, N. (1980). Cultural synergy: The management of cross-cultural organizations. Trends and Issues in OD: Current Theory and Practice. file:///C:/Users/mcdev/Downloads/Cultural Synergy-TheMe of Cross-Cultural Orgs-Adler.pdf 

I am using this blog entry to tell about a recent personal experience that has left me angry and quite frankly, just plain surprised. Basically, I was publicly harassed on a business’s Instagram page through no fault of my own. Before I write about this experience, I want to touch on some key aspects of this situation: managing conflict, need for diversity training, and the need for resources for employees to manage harassment. 

 

I work in coffee. I have been in craft coffee for 10 years and it’s one of my passions. I have worked everywhere, from State College, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, Boulder, CO, and Denver, CO- to name a few. I love the craft and training your palate to taste the different roast profiles has always been an interest of mine. In February, I moved back to Denver from PA and I quickly found a job at an aesthetically great shop through an old friend. I worked there for two weeks before quarantine. I was planning to quit because they were awful in general, but before I got a chance to, they had to let me go because of COVID-19. They also let go of my friend who got me the job. Fast forward to a couple of months later when I received a text from a friend in the Denver coffee community saying that she had posted an anonymous comment on a recent post of theirs calling them out for lying about lay-offs. (She was also a previous employee and an acquaintance of mine.) This post had spoken two lies: 1) they kept 100% of their employees during COVID-19 and 2) that they were a company dedicated to diversity. The business then started slandering my name across their public platform, even though 1) they had no proof that it was me and 2) it literally wasn’t me. (During all of this, I was on a Zoom call with a PSU group and had no idea what was happening.) My only guess as to why they felt so sure it was me was because I was indeed an employee who got laid off during the pandemic and they felt threatened that I was trying to expose their lie. They baselessly slandered my name and kept tagging me in posts that had the anonymous user and my handle in the same post. They told me that I was probably a part of a group of “white privileges.” I am not even white and they knew this. They just said it to make it seem that I didn’t fit their diverse narrative. Long story short, another owner from the Denver coffee community saw their comments and reached out to me and the anonymous user, who revealed themselves to her, and offered to help us write a call-to-action packet. We gathered 3 different accounts of racial discrimination and sexual harassment from other former employees. (Just as an example: all employees who gave us their accounts said something about being told by management to “ask Arabs to leave because their perfume is too strong”). While we spent a great deal of time putting this packet together- which included all the screenshots, accounts from former employees, and a call-to-action plan- we were met with nothing. They didn’t reply to us at all. We sent it to their wholesale company Intelligencia and they all but dismissed our written discrimination experiences with “we have spoken with them and they hold that they are committed to diversity.”  We were left with nothing but hopelessness because there was nowhere else to turn except costly litigation. 

 

Circling back to the three important aspects- conflict management, diversity training, and employee resources outside of HR. Managing conflict does not have to be hard. Gamble and Gamble (2013) outline some destructive management conflict behaviors enacted by businesses: Attacking the other person, Acting defensively, Stonewalling, and Communicating contempt. In my case, the company (whose name is AVIANO) displayed all four. They attacked me by making untrue accusations, acting defensively by threatening me with proof (that didn’t exist), stonewalling me by ignoring my comments to them asking me where it was coming from, and communicating contempt by bringing race into the discussion (Gamble & Gamble, 2013). This public display of actions was all but constructive. Instead of trying to resolve their notion of me being the anonymous user by reaching out to me privately, they based their decision to defile my name on hearsay. 

 

Diversity also comes into play here; more specifically- Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to see your culture as superior to another (Gamble & Gamble, 2013). Ethnocentricity comes from, to put it plainly, ignorance. I wholeheartedly believe that intolerance of another’s customs or regarding how an individual from another culture expresses themselves comes from the fear of not knowing. In the case I just described, even from many other perspectives, the owners of this business held prejudice against others. As I mentioned before, I am not white, but they chose to call me a privileged white so they could help their narrative. In the 3 other accounts, management used the words “Muslum, Arab, and Islam” interchangeably. In our packet, we included a call-to-action for them to incorporate diversity training into their workplace. To no avail, of course. Which brings me to my last point.  

 

Businesses are in a position of power, as they provide goods and services to the public. “Power is influence!” (Gamble & Gamble, 2013, p. 185). Gamble and Gamble (2013) outline different types of power. Coercive power threatens people to conform and will only result in a negative manner in the long run. Rather than use their platform for good, Aviano chose to ignore their lie and instead publicly attack someone innocent after their lie was publicly brought to their attention. When this happens, there is little left for that person to do, other than court. While experiencing this, we explored the idea of putting the screenshots on our personal accounts and exposing them. Personally, my audience isn’t big enough to make a difference because I don’t use social media often. Even so, this might not have made as big of an impact as I wanted it to. There are so many people in similar situations to this, whose stories get swept under the rug, or whose stories never get told for fear of retaliation. Inclusion and cultural differences should absolutely be included in any business model. In instances like this, the bullied get beat down and the bully continues to be a bully and own a business. Employees need resources to air these types of grievances where they will be received in a serious manner.