Cultural Dimensions Framing
Culture influences how we frame the experiences in our lives for interpretation and meaning making. There are many dimensions of culture that can be useful in understanding the nuances attributed to each cultural group.
Hofstede (1984) conducted research in more than 40 countries in the context of one multinational organization to better understand the definition of culture that he uses as “collective programming of the mind.” The four dimensions that he deduced from his data refer to power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2000) developed six dimensions of cultural diversity based on data collected from managers in more than 40 countries. These are universalism/particularism, indi- vidualism/communitarianism, specificity/dif- fusion, achieved status/ascribed status, inner direction/outer direction, and sequential time/ synchronous time.Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) look at cultural dimensions in terms of how they affect the manner in which conflict is addressed. They focus on the two dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance and further expound on this concept to highlight the contextual factors of the situation and our individual personality attributes. They developed a culture-based situational model that has four clusters of factors: (1) primary orientation factors (values, norms, and face concerns), (2) situational and relationship boundary features, (3) conflict communication process factors (style, strategy, and emotional expression), and (4) conflict competence features.
Fisher-Yoshida and Geller (2009) determined that framing these cultural dimensions as problems to solve can generate more problems as remedies swing from one end of the continuum to the other. Instead, they propose framing these cultural dimensions as paradoxes to manage, and the five paradoxes they highlight are the following: (1) paradox of knowing (knowing self and honoring others),
(2) paradox of focus (I-centric and we-centric),
(3) paradox of communication (communicating across difference—direct and indirect), (4) paradox of action (doing and reflecting), and (5) paradox of response (short-term and longterm). Ting-Toomey (2010) also supports the use of paradoxes because it is more useful to present criteria on a continuum because they coexist within the same culture.