Australia and United States are the two developed countries and have the regular standing in the world’s top ranking countries. Recently, there has been a massive growth observed in the GDP of Australia, and the trade pattern shows that the two nations have been successfully kept on the trading pact and have served each other’s interests. The Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions can show that how two countries have similarities in their cultures and on what basis they could be differentiated (Chávez, 2013).
The Australian culture is different from the USA on this basis. The managers and the superiors are accessible to the other staff. The hierarchy doesn’t create gaps in the work force. The information is thoroughly shared between each member of the organization despite the rank and the experience. However, USA has an established hierarchy system. The information has not participated, and directive rather a chain of command is followed (Moon & Holling, 2015).
The Australian society is a ‘We’ society. Unlike the USA, the Australian community develops the traits of looking after themselves and the people around them. Such as the medical aid services are provided free despite the cost incurred to the government. The expenses are bored so that each gets equal health treatment apart from their financial standing. The initiative is supported by the individuals and is given a chance to participate.
Australian society has different cultural values from the USA society. People aim to focus on achieving the goals and ignoring the differences on a larger scale. The individuals in the Australian community are given a chance to participate equally and are encouraged to win. In the USA society, if the conflict arises the manager level person is involved to solve it, however, in the Australian society, it resorts on the individual level (Prosser, 2014).
Long Term Orientation
The Australian citizens are strictly bonded to their cultural values. The success for them does not mean that they shall switch to their newer trends from their societal traits. However, the society of the USA establishing the success has forgotten their actual culture and just following the latest trend. The people think normatively and will follow their instinct despite following the orders.
In the Australian and the USA society, the people have almost the same tolerance score. They try to follow their own will and when have time and resources they prefer spending it leisurely and then are fueled to get back to work sooner. The government of USA has imposed many taxes on their citizens, and sometimes it becomes difficult for them to enjoy because of their enormous responsibilities to be fulfilled (Smith Pfister & Soliz, 2011).
Considering the growth of the two countries, if an organization from the USA has to operate in Australia, then a set of different dimensions has to be adopted. Such as the business from the USA, the management shall not have a directive and authoritative approach. Rather they shall give an equal chance to each for exploring their skills. Moreover, the communication shall be kept in a participative tone for the reason that the hierarchies are not given any importance in Australia. Also, the business shall maintain no distance with their employees and shall be encouraged to any time participate or reach out to their manager.
Chávez, K. (2013). Pushing Boundaries: Queer Intercultural Communication. Journal Of International And Intercultural Communication, 6(2), 83-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2013.777506
Moon, D., & Holling, M. (2015). A Politic of Disruption: Race(ing) Intercultural Communication. Journal Of International And Intercultural Communication, 8(1), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2015.991073
Prosser, M. (2014). Intercultural and international communication. International Journal Of Intercultural Relations, 3(2), 252-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(79)90071-3
Smith Pfister, D., & Soliz, J. (2011). (Re)conceptualizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society. Journal Of International And Intercultural Communication, 4(4), 246-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.598043