Cultural Values of Mexico and USA Compared

In the globalized contemporary world, the restrain of territorial boundaries no longer applies to the private business. The various States of the world follow a policy of open economy where trade is carried out with many different countries simultaneously. Open economy refers to a situation where the concerned country allows private businesses of other countries to set up their base in the host country, while the private businesses of the concerned country establish their branches in other countries (Mazanec et al. 2015). Thus, there is a system of interconnectedness amongst almost all the countries of the world. However, a main problem arises when there is political animosity between the agencies of the States. Political crisis always unequivocally affect the economy of the world. The economy is adversely affected when two States or more have political or cultural differences between themselves. This essay seeks to discuss the various cultural differences that might arise from the conduction of business between the countries of Mexico and United States of America. This essay analyzes the various cultural values of the two States and how these cultural values are different from each other or similar to each other, which, in turn, either help in the promotion of business or adversely affects the conduction of the business. The main purpose of this essay is to look into the various cultural problems existing between Untied States of America and Mexico and what potential problems might arise for people from these two cultures conducting business with one another.

Mexico is considered to be one of the earliest cradles of civilizations. People from various parts of Asia, Europe and Africa migrated to Mexico during the ancient times because of its rich civilizational culture (Bakir et al. 2015). During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the culture of Mexico was in sharp contrast to that of the liberal ideology pursued by the United States of America. It was more influenced by the principles of Communism, believing in the socialist ownership of property. However, the contemporary social structure of Mexico is along the similar lines of liberalist principles. The country of Mexico now believes in the principles of liberal ideology, privatization and liberalization. As such, almost a free reign is given to the private players to pursue their ultimate objective of earning higher profits and revenue.

The United States of America always had a culture aligned with the liberalist ideology (Favaretto et al. 2016). The land of the United States was formed by the immigrants from different countries of Europe, Africa and Asia. These people felt that their independence from the native countries was hard won and there should not be any further restraint on their freedom. As such, the United States now follows liberal principles and the private players have absolute control over the market.

Power Distance

The comparison of the cultural values of these two countries of Mexico and the United States of America can be done with the help of a model known as Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory. The Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory was invented by Geert Hofstede, which serves as a guideline for comparing cross cultural communication (Upadhyaya and Rittenburg 2015). This Theory primarily considers the impact of the culture of a society on the values of its people and how these values fundamentally shape the behavior of that person. The Dimension Theory has six essential dimensions based on which the national culture of a particular country is compared to that of another. Based on these dimensions, the culture of Mexico and the United States has been discussed.

The first dimension is known as Power Distance. This dimension measures the behavior of people on the issue of unequal distribution of power among the members of society (Minkov et al. 2017). With a score of 81, it is believed that the people of Mexico accepts the hierarchical structure of the society and accepts the existing inequality among them (Hofstede Insights, 2018). The people of the United States, on the other hand, are not satisfied with the unequal distribution of power. They believe that everyone is equal in society and hence, everybody should be treated equally. The United States has a poor score of 40 on this dimension (Hofstede Insights, 2018).

The second dimension is known as Individualism. This dimension measures the degree of collectivism in the society, meaning the whether the society views itself in terms of “I” or in terms of “we” (Chien et al. 2016). The people of Mexico identify a lot with their family members and the people of society and hence, they have a feeling of collectivism in the society. Thus, the country has a score of 30 in this dimension (Hofstede Insights, 2018). However, this is not the case in term so of the United States. The people of the United States have a tendency towards individualism and they like to be isolated from the society. As a result, this country has a high score of 91 in this dimension (Hofstede Insights, 2018).

The third dimension is that of masculinity. This dimension measures the willingness of the society to work hard and compete with each other (Kwon, Kim and Koh 2016). A high score in this dimension indicates that the people of the society are very competitive and want to be successful, whereas, a low score indicates a feminine attitude of the society where people are more interested to care for one another and live a quality life.  Both Mexico and the United States have a relatively high score in this dimension, scoring 69 and 62 respectively (Hofstede Insights, 2018).

Individualism

Uncertainty Avoidance is the fourth dimension. This dimension measures the willingness of the community to undertake risks and challenges while conducting business (Minkov 2018). Mexico, with a score of 82, prefers to avoid taking any risks and is averse to new innovations and changes (Hofstede Insights, 2018). The United States on the other hand, believes in the invention of new concepts and ideas which will help in the development of the business.

The fifth dimension is long term orientation. This dimension measures the affinity of the concerned society with its historical traditions and values and how much they have an impact in the modern changes and innovations (Eisend, Evanschitzky and Gilliland 2016). Scoring a low of 24 and 26, both Mexico and the United States look towards modernity and change with suspicions and prefer to cling onto the past values and customs (Hofstede Insights, 2018).

The final dimension is that of Indulgence. This dimension measures the desire of the people of the concerned State to either spend their money in a leisure way or to restrain themselves and save money (Erdman 2018). People of both Mexico and the United States wish to indulge themselves in leisure time and spend their money in a leisure manner, as reflected in their relatively high score in this dimension.

Analyzing the nature of the culture of the countries Mexico and the United States, it is opined that a private business belonging to that of the United States will find it challenging to conduct a business in Mexico (Hofstede Insights, 2018). The people of Mexico do not believe much in change and they are averse to the idea of innovation and new inventions. Moreover, the collective nature of the society of Mexico makes it difficult for any individual to take any decision unilaterally. This poses a real challenge to the private players of the United States as they are more prone to continual innovations which will help them to conduct their business in an effective and efficient manner.

Ford Motor Company, a United States originated Company, has extended its branch in Mexico. Although the Government of Mexico is taking strong measures to change the nature of society to a more open and competitive one, the prevalent culture of Mexico makes it challenging for the operation of Ford Motors within the country. There are many obstacles which the company needs to face such as obtaining construction permits and attracting investors for the company. The acceptance of the hierarchical structure of the society, on the other hand, provides some relief to the management who do not have to worry about the dissatisfaction of the employees. Moreover, the masculine nature of the market which encourages competition, allows the private player to achieve its ultimate objective of generating higher profits.

Masculinity

To conclude, it is observed that the existing cultural difference between the countries of Mexico and the United States poses many challenges to the outside private players operating within their respective territorial boundaries. Although all the economies are rapidly transforming into an open economy with a competitive framework, there are many traditional and cultural challenges that exist within the framework of the country of Mexico. This makes it considerably challenging for the private players originating from the United States to conduct their business in their neighboring country. The parent company in the United States have all the freedom to pursue their self-interest of earning higher profits by instituting new changes within their production and management sphere without any hassle. However, this is not possible within Mexico as the employees would provide resistance to any sudden changes in the organizational level. They would prefer that the changes occur gradually over time. This will hamper the operation of the business in terms of lower generation of revenue and a consequent lower profit margin.

The human mind is very prejudicial in nature. It cannot help but form an opinion about other people. Often times, it happens that this opinion is not limited to one particular human being, but rather is extended to other similar human beings or those who are related to the concerned person. This is what is known as stereotyping. Stereotyping is defined as a psychological nature where an individual believes that a particular person or similar group of persons will behave in a particular way under any circumstances (Roth and Ritter 2015). As such, the behavior of the concerned individual or group of people can be foreseen and accordingly, other people can take actions. Such stereotyping is not an encouraged social behavior as it might lead to false accusations and prejudices. Individuals differ from each other in their personality and characteristic features. They are inherently unique and different from one another at a fundamental level.

Stereotyping can be of two types, that is implicit stereotyping and explicit stereotyping (Yip 2016). Implicit stereotyping refers to that situation where an individual generalizes the actions and behavior of another person or group of persons but does not verbally communicate this to the other party (Caparoso and Collins 2015). They keep their prejudices in their mind and as such, there stereotyping is implicit in their communication with the other individual or group of people. Stereotyping implies that an individual has already formed some pre conceived notion about another person or a similar group of person and expects them to behave in this manner. These generalizations may not be an actual representation of the behavior of the person but in human society, because of animosity, they somehow end up being true. Explicit stereotyping refers to the situation where the individual verbally communicates the expected outcome and behavior of the opposing individual or group of people to them (Najdowski, Bottoms and Goff 2015). As such, the opposing party is aware and conscious of the prejudices existing within the minds of the person they are communicating with. This is helpful to the extent that the people can control their communication to that level which will not ignite any negative behavior from either of the parties.

Uncertainty Avoidance

One of the most concerning stereotype in the present contemporary world is that of racial discrimination (Godsil et al. 2014). The ‘whites’ have a prejudice against the ‘blacks’ believing that the ‘blacks’ are inherently barbarians and are not civilized in any manner. This prejudice is the result of the colonial baggage when the European imperialist powers of the world decided to expand their territories beyond their mainland into other parts of the world (Clark et al. 2015). However, they needed a reason to occupy the lands which did not belong to them. In order to do so, the European colonial masters created the theory that the people of these concerned land in the Eastern and Southern part of the world were not civilized and did not know how to rule themselves. The reason provided by the ‘whites’ for the prevailing conflict in these lands is because the people of such lands were barbarians; this was clearly evidences in their skin color which was ‘black’ signifying that they were dirty and did not even have the decency to take care of themselves. The question arose that how could they take care of an entire land. The ‘whites’ felt that it was their responsibility to educate the ‘blacks’ on how to rule themselves. This marked the beginning of the era of colonization where the ‘whites’ ruled over the ‘blacks’. This era was infamous in global history because of the wide scale presence of oppression, chaos and misery for the ‘black’ people.

After the end of the Second World War, the international community realized that every nation of the world had the privilege of being sovereign, that is, they had the freedom to be independent and not be under the rule of any other country. This essentially brought an end to the period of colonization and all the colonial countries, essential those country where majority of the population has a ‘black’ skin tone’, became free and independent (George 2015). However, the prejudice in the minds of the people did not change in the following decades, even till now. The ‘whites’ still have the mindset that they are superior to the ‘blacks’ in all aspects of life, just because of their differing skin tone.

The problem of racial discrimination has manifested itself in a very grave manner in the present world (Weber et al. 2014). The ‘whites’ stereotype the ‘blacks’ to be as still barbarians, incapable of any civilized mannerism and behavior. They believe that the ‘blacks’ are rowdy and do not have ethics to behave properly in a public setting. The ‘blacks’ on the other hand holds the assumption that the ‘whites’ suffer from a superiority complex and arrogance (Taylor et al. 2018). The ‘blacks’ have the prejudice that the ‘whites’ look down upon the ‘blacks’ and hence, there is no way to reconcile the existing situation. This prejudice in the minds of the people have made it very difficult for them to communicate properly with one another.

Long Term Orientation

The stereotyping of different races has created a barrier against effective communication. No ‘white’ likes to conduct business with a ‘black’ person and it is the same the other way around. They feel like the opposing individual would not understand them and will continue to hold their prejudice within their mind. In a work place, this stereotyping carries grave consequences (Krupnikov and Piston 2015). This assumption often adversely affects the career of such person, leading to a negative growth in career. One similar group of individual finds it difficult to properly communicate with the other similar group of individual. This results in extreme miscommunication and animosity. The miscommunication may also prevent an individual to learn something new, might demotivate them to work properly and might lead to missing of several opportunities which might otherwise would have helped them to improve their career.

Such stereotyping might also prevent an individual to effectively communicate with his or her audience. He or she night feel that since the audience already has a pre conceived notion of his or her behavior and might not receive the words in an effective and welcoming manner, it highly demotivates the speaker to deliver a perfect presentation (Andemeskel et al. 2017). This dampens the work environment to a great extent and creates obstacles in the work place which otherwise might not have existed. Racial discrimination in the work place, as such, is highly discouraged and sometimes, legal actions can also be taken when such stereotyping becomes explicit in nature. No action can be taken in the case of implicit stereotyping as there is nothing that can stop an individual from thinking in a certain manner. Everyone has the freedom of thought and speech. However, care must be taken to ensure that this thought process do not manifest itself in a real life situation where the sentiments of some other individual is harmed in the process (Hope, Skoog and Jagers 2015). This will lead to violation of the freedom of the other affected individual and this, in turn, will require the legal intervention of the concerned State.

To conclude, it is observed that stereotyping is not good for humanity. People should be given the benefit of doubt before someone forms an opinion about them. The pre conceived notions in the minds of people about some concerned individual or similar group of people will only lead to conflict and animosity. Besides racial stereotyping, there exists many numerous other forms of stereotyping, such as gender bias between men and women. It is often assumed that the female gender is weak and delicate and therefore, always require the care and support of the male gender. It is because of such prejudices that the women are not preferred to be employed in the work force and even if they are employed, they are not given the due recognition or paid the similar wages as paid to that to the men performing the same work. Stereotyping has divided the world into many small pieces, with each individual holding a grudge against the other for some actions performed by someone else who is similar to the victim of stereotyping. The only mechanism to prevent stereotyping is to inculcate a civic sense of broadening the mind so that any conceived notions are not formed. Every individual deserves a chance to prove himself or herself before someone starts to judge them. Such a step will improve the process of communication and make it efficient and flawless. It is very important for human beings to be able to communicate with one another and have some to depend on simply because they are human beings. Discriminations should be highly discouraged.

Conclusion

References:

Andemeskel, G., King, C.R., Wallace, L., Monteiro, K.P. and Ben-Zeev, A., 2017. ‘I’m Black and I’m Proud’: A Majority Ecological Context Protects Affective Aspects of Black Identity Under Stereotype Threat. Race and social problems, 9(4), pp.313-320.

Bakir, A., Blodgett, J.G., Vitell, S.J. and Rose, G.M., 2015. A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 226-232). Springer, Cham.

Caparoso, J.T. and Collins, C.S., 2015. College student racial and ethnic stereotype-based humor as a cultural domain. Power and Education, 7(2), pp.196-223.

Chien, S.Y., Sycara, K., Liu, J.S. and Kumru, A., 2016, September. Relation between trust attitudes toward automation, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and big five personality traits. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 841-845). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Clark, J.K., Thiem, K.C., Barden, J., Stuart, J.O.R. and Evans, A.T., 2015. Stereotype validation: The effects of activating negative stereotypes after intellectual performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 108(4), p.531.

Eisend, M., Evanschitzky, H. and Gilliland, D.I., 2016. The influence of organizational and national culture on new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(3), pp.260-276.

Erdman, K., 2018. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutes and Organizations across Nations. Macat Library.

Favaretto, R.M., Dihl, L., Barreto, R. and Musse, S.R., 2016, September. Using group behaviors to detect hofstede cultural dimensions. In Image Processing (ICIP), 2016 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 2936-2940). IEEE.

George, J.A., 2015. Stereotype and school pushout: Race, gender and discipline disparities. Ark. L. Rev., 68, p.101.

Godsil, R.D., Tropp, L.R., Goff, P.A. and Powell, J.A., 2014. Addressing implicit bias, racial anxiety, and stereotype threat in education and health care. The Science of Equality, 1.

Hofstede Insights. (2018). Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights. [online] Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/mexico,the-usa/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2018].

Hofstede Insights. (2018). Home – Hofstede Insights. [online] Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2018].

Hope, E.C., Skoog, A.B. and Jagers, R.J., 2015. “It’ll Never Be the White Kids, It’ll Always Be Us” Black High School Students’ Evolving Critical Analysis of Racial Discrimination and Inequity in Schools. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(1), pp.83-112.

Krupnikov, Y. and Piston, S., 2015. Racial prejudice, partisanship, and White turnout in elections with Black candidates. Political Behavior, 37(2), pp.397-418.

Kwon, J., Kim, D. and Koh, C.E., 2016, January. A Comparative Study of National Culture and Innovation: Effects of Cultural Dimensions on Traditional Innovation and Online Innovation. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3615-3624). IEEE.

Mazanec, J.A., Crotts, J.C., Gursoy, D. and Lu, L., 2015. Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, pp.299-304.

Minkov, M., 2018. A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), pp.231-256.

Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y. and Mudd, B., 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), pp.386-404.

Najdowski, C.J., Bottoms, B.L. and Goff, P.A., 2015. Stereotype threat and racial differences in citizens’ experiences of police encounters. Law and human behavior, 39(5), p.463.

Roth, K. and Ritter, Z., 2015, June. Racial Spectacle and Campus Climate: The Intersection of US Media Representations and Racial Stereotype Formation among Asian International Students, and Cross-Racial Interaction on College Campuses. In Schools of Education Biennial Conference, Bridgetown, Barbados.

Taylor, V.J., Garcia, R.L., Shelton, J.N. and Yantis, C., 2018. “A threat on the ground”: The consequences of witnessing stereotype-confirming ingroup members in interracial interactions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(3), p.319.

Upadhyaya, S. and Rittenburg, T.L., 2015, June. Cultural influences on experiences of and responses to consumer vulnerability. In Annual macromarketing conference (p. 59).

Weber, C.R., Lavine, H., Huddy, L. and Federico, C.M., 2014. Placing racial stereotypes in context: Social desirability and the politics of racial hostility. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), pp.63-78.

Yip, T., 2016. To be or not to be: How ethnic/racial stereotypes influence ethnic/racial disidentification and psychological mood. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), p.38.