Hofstede (2001) defines culture as the collective programing of the mind which

distinguishes the members of one human group from another. A majority of people from the
same culture carry the same values, with values being defined as a broad tendency to prefer
certain states of affairs over others. Values are the essence of culture as they are embedded
in the peoples attitudes and beliefs.
The essence of culture is the sets of values that people share within their culture, people from
the same culture have their own sets of values which are strongly rooted in their attitudes and
beliefs that it is impossible for them to thoroughly understand other cultures (Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner, 1998).
Cultures are comprised of people who share values, beliefs, assumptions, norms, and
meanings of events of words that are learned over a period of time and often taken for
granted by the people living with them (Earley & Singh, 1995; Tayeb, 1994; Zapf, 1991).
Culture values are principles that nations endorse to guide people regarding appropriate
behaviours in various situations. They reflect broad preferences for one state of affairs over
others and opinions on how things should be (Hofstede, 2001).
In their book Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, the
authors Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner argue that there are major cultural differences
between nations and these affect the process of doing business and managing organizations,
whereas in the context of their book culture is understood as simply the way in which a
group of people solve problems and reconcile dilemmas (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
1997).
As students of International business the critical area we need to understand is that the
difficulties that arise when cultural borders are crossed concern mainly the diminishing
effectiveness of management processes that occurs when multinational companies, ignoring
cultural differences, try to apply in foreign countries subsidiaries management formulas that
were derived from their own cultural context and proven to be successful in that culture.
The assignment asked us to compare and contrast Malaysia and the United States in terms of
their cultural behaviour referencing Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners cultural
dimensions, however one must keep in mind when reading this work that Malaysia is a multicultural country with three main ethnic groups (Chinese, Indian and Malay) and each ethic
group does not share the same cultural values. Thien & Razak, (2014) and Fontaine (2002)

reported that although there are similarities in work related cultural values of the ethnics in
Malaysia they do have significant differences between the ethnic groups due to distinct
cultural and religious heritages.
Asma (2001) further affirms that attempts to bring in western management principles and
techniques in Malaysia may not go down well with the Malaysian workforce that were
bought up with unique cultural values that influence behaviour in the work place.
It is critical that we detect and understand the cultural differences and consequently
remember the fact that, due to them, there is no one best way of managing an organization
(Trompenaars & Wooliams, 2003; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004)
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) proposed a cultural model with seven dimensions,
arranged in a continuum. These dimensions are the answer the group gives to some common
problems. The dimension identified concern time, relation with others, with nature, with rules
and with affections and is illustrated below.

Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the first one I would look at is Universalism
versus Particularism (Rules versus Relationship) focusing the relation of people of a group
with rules and laws (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993). An analysis of this
dimension indicates how a culture relates to rules and exceptions. It deals with the dilemma:
Should decision(s) and behaviour be based on one universal rule, and hence apply for all
situations and all contexts or should decisions and behaviours be adapted to the given
circumstances?
The following quotation illustrates the dilemma of the dimensions: A Universalist will say
of the particularist, they cannot be trusted because they will always help their friends; a
particularist on the other hand will say of Universalists, you cannot trust them; they would
not even help a friend Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2001). The main characteristics
of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure below, Mind Tools
Corporate Website (2016)

In Universalism people place a high importance on laws, rules, values and obligations. They
try to deal fairly with people based on these rules, but rules come before relationships.
Particularism is where people believe that each circumstance and each relationship dictates
the rules that they live by. Their response to a situation may change, based on what is
happening in the moment and whos involved. In a universalistic culture, the laws/rules apply
to everyone, whereas exceptions are made in particularistic cultures.

America is a society that ranks high in universalism Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(2001), Malaysia was not studied in this research but benchmarking it close to countries in
the region such as China and Hong Kong will be more towards Particularism. The figure
below illustrates that the USA is more towards universalism.

Having worked in both America for three years and being a Malaysia by birth I have a firsthand view of both cultures, America is a land of rules and laws where position counts not as
much, the law is supreme and Americans defend their constitution as a sacred document,
there is separation and independence of powers and rules apply across the board. America is
the nation where a President has been impeached not once but twice.
Universalism comes strongly to America from the second paragraph of the United States
Declaration of Independence states We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their creator within certain unalienable rights that
among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Malaysia on the other hand is a country where all men are not created equal; our constitution
guards the rights of the Malays and grants them special privileges, from a young age the
other two races Chinese and Indians are taught to survive we need to work hard and that no
matter how good we are there is one set of rules for us and another for the majority. This has
led to Malaysia as a society being more towards Particularism. Due to the sensitivity of Race
and Religion in Malaysia there are very few studies to prove this but every Malaysian who
has worked has experienced this in some form or the other.
In Malaysia human relationships and whom you know are more important than rules and
codes, as a country we are not against rules but we tend to be more towards everybody can
count on their friends. Rules come after human aspects have been considered.
As an International business student knowing the differences are crucial to success, as a
Malaysian manager going to work in the United States of America it would be highly
improper and frowned upon to use friends to get ahead or request special favours from them

to assist me in my work. I would be expected to get in line and follow due process as the next
man with no special treatment because I know the other person. For an American coming to
Malaysia it can come as a culture shock to see processes and rules being y by-passed thanks
to relationships, special privileges and passes being given because you know the correct
people is a norm for Malaysians but foreign to such an American manager.
Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when individuals from particularist cultures do
business in Universalist culture they should be prepared for rational, professional arguments
and a lets get down to business attitude. Conversely when individuals from universalistic
cultures do business in a particularistic environment they should be prepared for personal
meandering or irrelevancies that seem to go nowhere and should not regard personal get to
know you attitudes and mere small talk.
Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the second one I would look at is
Individualism vs Communitarianism (the individual versus the group) focusing on the
relation of people with others Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993).
Individualism defined by Trompenaars and Hampden Turner (1993) states people believe in
personal freedom and achievement, they believe that you make your own decisions and that
you must take care of yourself, whereas Communitarianism states that people believe that the
group is more important than the individual, the group provides help and safety in exchange
for loyalty and that the group always comes before the individual.
The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

Individualism as the name implies sees human beings as individuals, whereas

communitarianism characterizes humanity as being part of a group, Trompenaars (2001) says
that the individualistic culture is linked to the ideas of the western world, whereas the
communitarian culture is linked to non-western countries.
In his research the United States scored high on the Individualism scale whereas Malaysia
was more towards Communitarianism

However this study was conducted in the late 90s and todays younger Malaysian generation
influenced by the global economy, spread of social media and the internet has now seen our
younger generation moving towards a more individualistic culture. So the findings are not
always cast in stone as society evolves with time and technology.
Coming from a Malaysian culture and moving to America for work it came as a shock to see
how individualistic Americans were; the entrepreneurial spirit was evident where they
believe every individual irrespective of race or religion can succeed and have his bite of the
American dream. The belief that an individual can achieve anything can come across as
arrogance but on better understanding their culture I came to realize it was self-confidence.

From a Malaysian perspective the focus tended to be on the community and whats best for
the group or team, the fear of conflict left many ideas unfulfilled and potential wasted. Being
part of the team or community is of more importance than going out and shining as an
individual to get things done.
Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when people from cultures with high individualism
deal with those from communitarianism cultures they should have patience for the time taken
to build consent and consult and the aim should be to create lasting relationships. When
people from cultures with high communitarianism deal with people from individualistic
cultures they should be prepared to make quick decisions and are able to commit their
company/organization to these decisions.
Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the third one I would look at is Specific vs
Diffuse (how far people get involved) focusing on the way people are willing to view the
picture of life Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993).
Trompenaars (2001) defines the specific dimension as people keeping work and personal
lives separate and as a result believe that relationships dont have much impact on work
objectives and although good relationships are important, they believe that people can work
together without having a good relationship, whereas the diffuse dimension is where people
see an overlap between work and their personal lives. They are of the belief that good
relationships are vital to meeting business objectives and that their relationship with others
will be the same, whether they are at work or in a social gathering. These people like to spend
time outside working hours with colleagues and clients building relationships.
The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

Generally individuals from specifically-oriented cultures analyse elements separately and

then put them back together, they say viewing the whole is the sum of its parts. These
specifically oriented people concentrate on hard facts and figures, whereas people from
diffusely-oriented cultures see each element in the perspective of the complete picture; all
elements are related to each other.

From Trompenaars (2001) the USA is more towards the specific dimension whereas
Malaysia was not in this study from personal experience as a Malaysian we are more towards
the diffuse dimension. Americans tend to strike a work life balance where work is work, life
is life, and they tend not to bring their work home and do not allow relationships to cloud
business decisions and judgement, whereas we in Malaysia are more into the belief that our
network is our net worth and are constantly socializing and building relationships. Our
business partners, work colleagues tend to become family and lifelong friends, and the lines
between social and business become blur.
Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when those from specific cultures do business in
different cultures, they should respect a persons title, age, and background connections, and
they should not get impatient when people are being indirect or circuitous. Conversely when
individuals from diffuse cultures di business in specific cultures they should try to get to the
point and be efficient, learn to structure meetings with the use of agendas and not use their
titles or acknowledge achievements or skills that are irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the fourth one I would look at is Neutral vs
Emotional (how people express emotions) focusing on the way people deal and display their
emotions Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993).
Neutral dimension as defined by Trompenaars and Hampden Turner (1993) states people
make a great effort to control their emotions, reason influences their actions more than their
feelings. People tend to not reveal what they are thinking or feeling, whereas in the
Emotional dimension people want to find ways to express their emotions, even spontaneously
at work. In these cultures it is welcome and accepted to show emotion.
The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

In a country where neutral dimension is predominant, emotions tend to be controlled and in a

country which has an emotional culture emotions are expressed openly and spontaneously.
Well known examples of neutral cultures are Japan and the United Kingdom, where it is
frowned upon to show emotions by getting angry in public, laughing loudly or showing
affection.
In an emotional culture the above behaviour is allowed and countries such as Spain and
Mexico people laugh regularly talk loudly and greet each other with enthusiasm.

America and Malaysia when it comes to neutral and emotional dimensions is very fluid, in
America and Malaysia depending on whom you are interacting with you will find people who
are both neutral and emotional. Caucasians in America and Chinese and Malay in Malaysia
would fall into a neutral dimension and control their emotions, whereas Indians in Malaysia
and Latinos and African American in America are emotional.

The above figure further supports my argument as to the balance as we can observe that the
USA is neither at the far end of Neutral or Emotional dimensions. Malaysia was not included
in this study but our immediate regional neighbour Thailand can be used to see as also being
very centric further lending credence to my opinion based on my experiences.
Trompenaars (2001) recommended that when individuals from emotional cultures do
business in neutral cultures they should put as much as they can on paper and submit it to the
other side. They should realize that lack or emotions does not indicate disinterest or boredom,
but rather that people from neutral cultures do not like to show their cards. Conversely when
those from neutral cultures do business in emotional cultures, they should not be put off stride
when the other side creates scenes or grows animated and boisterous. They should strive to
respond warmly to the emotional affections of the other group.
Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the fifth one I would look at is Achievement
Vs Ascription (how people view status) focusing on how status is assigned Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner (1993).
Trompenaars and Hampden Turner (1993) define the Achievement dimension as how people
believe that you are what you do, and they base your worth accordingly. This culture values
performance above all else irrespective of who you are, whereas those from ascription culture
tend to believe you should be valued for who you are, power, title and position matter in
these cultures and these roles define behaviour.

The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

This dimension is more focussed on achieved status versus ascribed status, in an

achievement-oriented culture a persons worth is determined on the basis of his performance
and how well they carry out their tasks. In a culture where status is ascribed it is based on
who the person in question is. Their position comes from origin, gender, age, career, positon
or religion.

From Trompenaars (2001) the USA is more towards the Achievement dimension whereas
Malaysia was not included in this study but from my experience and review of power
dimension below Malaysia is more towards the Ascription dimension in terms of our cultural
dimensions.

This cultural dimension of achievement and ascription is similar to that of power distance
dimension of Hofstede.

This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal and it
expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Malaysia scores
very high on this dimension which indicates our society accepts a hierarchical order in which
everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization
is seems as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular and subordinates expect
to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to leadership are
frowned upon and not well received.
America is totally on the opposite side of this as the fact that they recognize achievement
over titles, a man is judged on what he can achieve and this is a fundamental of the American
dream where a man can achieve everything if he puts in the effort and hard work. Titles are
not respected in any great reverence, and challenge to leadership is welcome as keeping
leaders on their toes.
Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when individuals from achievement cultures do
business in ascription cultures, they should make sure that their group has senior, older and
formal position holders who can impress the other side and they must respect the status and
influence of their counterparts in the other group. Conversely, he recommends that when
individuals from ascription cultures do business in achievement cultures, they should make
sure that their group has sufficient data, technical advisers, and knowledgeable people to
convince the other group that they are proficient and that they should respect the knowledge
and information of their counterparts on the other team.

Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the sixth one I would look at is Sequential
Time Vs Synchronous time (how people manage time) focusing on how time is managed
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993).
Trompenaars and Hampden Turner (1993) identified two different dimensions of time; in
cultures where there is a sequential approach being prevalent people tend to do only one
activity as a time, keep appointments strictly and show a strong preference for following
plans as they are laid out and not deviating from them. In cultures where there is a
synchronous approach people tend to multi-task and do more than one activity at any given
time, appointments are approximate and may be changed at a moments notice and schedules
are subordinate to relationships. People in such cultures will often stop what they are doing to
meet and greet individuals coming into their offices.
The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

America tends to be more towards sequential time dimension where individuals set a
schedule and tend to stick to it, there is a respect for the other persons time and the saying is
time is money and thus must be respected. Malaysia on the other hand when making plans
keep in mind the objectives to be achieved but leave open the time and other factors that may
be beyond our control.
Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when doing business with future oriented cultures
effective managers should emphasize the opportunities and limitless scope that any
agreements can have, and agree to specific deadlines for getting things done and be aware of
the core competency or continuity that the other party intends to carry with it into the future.
When doing business with past or present oriented cultures, managers should emphasize the
history and tradition of the culture, find out whether internal relationships will sanction the
types of changes that need to be made, and agree to future meetings in principle but fix no
deadlines for completions.
Using Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner model the seventh and final one I would look at is
Internal Direction Vs Outer Direction (how people relate to their environment) focusing on
how people experience their environment. Is the environment a threat or is it sensible to move
with factors that are caused by society Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993).
Trompenaars and Hampden Turner (1993) define the dimension as those cultures that think
that they control their environment and others think they are controlled by it. The United
States of America is an internalistic culture and here people believe that what happens to
them is through their own efforts and doing, whereas many Asian countries like Malaysia
have an external culture where the belief is the environment shapes their destiny and because
they dont believe that they are in full control of their destines tend to adapt to external
circumstances.

The main characteristics of these dimensions and the strategies are summarized in the figure
below Mind Tools Corporate Website (2016)

Trompenaars (2001) recommends that when dealing with those from cultures that believe in
dominating the environment, it is important to play hardball, test the resilience of the
opponent, win some objectives and always lose from time to time. On the other hand when
dealing with those from cultures that believe in letting things take their natural course it is
important to be persistent and polite and maintain good relationships with the other party and
try to win together and lose apart.

However I decided to better understand this assignment against the theory and link it to my
line of thinking as a manager I should take a simple test and see my results. So from the
following website http://www.cultureforbusiness.com/bac/tester1.asp?RB_PW_BOK_ I took
the simple survey and my results are as follows:

From the results I saw that of the 7 Dimensions I personally have 5 that are more towards the
United States of America cultural dimension, and 1 towards Malaysian and 1 (emotional) fits
my criteria of being a Malaysian of Indian origin.
The results at first came as a surprise to me, but on critical reflection I would say that having
studied abroad and worked all my life for Multi National organizations with corporate
headquarters in the United States of America I have evolved as a person and tend to have
adopted their culture as mine when it comes to work and life. This led me to the following
critical evaluation:
Trompenaars theory focuses on the way people think, their foresights, behaviour and future
expectations using three basic yardsticks; relationship with others, time and environment. He
believed culture is a way a group of people solve problems. To a large extent these are valid
points because culture does revolve around our orientation and behaviour. However there are
limitations to his theory that we need to consider as students of international behaviour.
Trompenaars theory focuses more on global corporate managers and leaders, his cultural
definitions revolve around national and organisational culture. These two perspectives could
not be said to cover individual or group of peoples choices vis-a-vis their cultural
backgrounds. It can best be applied on a general and professional level as it covers only the
professional cultural life which may not necessarily translate to individual social cultures.
Again, he chose managers at different strata in different parts of the world for his research
and it basically covers this calibre of people within a much diversified world. Thus, his
reliability is somewhat limited to the business world rather than encompass the different
aspects of life
.It is safe to conclude that Trompenaars' research is surface-based and cannot best describe
critically analysed cultural layers which deprives us the opportunity to have a background
knowledge about peoples' cultures considering the knowledge of the hidden part of their way
of life.
As a manager in a multicultural organisation, it is unreasonable, a waste of time and
resources to conduct new research(s) in order to re-strategize on business innovations in a
multicultural business environment. Trompenaars theory can be adopted and modified to suit
our purposes, aims, targets and goals thereby saving resources and time. The modification is
necessary because cultures are dynamic and there is 'no cap fit all' strategy.

The nature of business, its environment, target customers and a host of other possibilities
determine the flexibility of Trompenaars theory adoption.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, A. (2001). Understanding the Malaysian workforce: Guidelines for managers. . Malaysia:
Malaysian Institute of Management.
Earley, P. C. (1995). International and intercultural management research: Whats next? Academy of
Management Journal, 327340.
Fontaine, R. R. (2002). The tropical fish problem revisited: A Malaysian perspective. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 2002. .
Hofstede, G. (1992). Cultures and Organizations, Software of the mind.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. California: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). California: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations. California: Sage Publications 2001.
HOFSTEDE, G. (2016, July 17). https://www.geert-hofstede.com/malaysia.html. Retrieved July 17,
2016, from GEERT HOFSTEDE: https://www.geert-hofstede.com/malaysia.html
http://www.cultureforbusiness.com/bac/tester1.asp?RB_PW_BOK_. (2016, July 21). Retrieved July
21, 2016, from Culture for Busienss:
http://www.cultureforbusiness.com/bac/tester1.asp?RB_PW_BOK_
Mind Tools. (2016, July 20). Retrieved July 20, 2016, from Mind Tools: http://www.mindtools.com
Smith, P. B. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity.
International Journal of Psychology, 377-400.
Smith, P. B. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees a dimensional
analysis across 43 nations. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 231-264.
Tayeb, M. (1994). Organizations and national culture: Methodology considered. Organization
Studies, 429446.
Thien, L. M. (2014). eacher commitment: a comparative study of Malaysian ethnic groups in three
types of primary schools. Social Psychology of Education, 1-20.
Trompenaars, F. &. (2003). Business Across Cultures. California: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Trompenaars, F. &.-T. (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business. London & Santa Rosa: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.

Trompenaars, F. &.-T. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global
business (2nd ed.). New Jersey: McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars, F. &.-T. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. In F. &.-T. Trompenaars, Riding the waves
of culture (p. 162). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). The multicultural company. Paris: Maxima.
Zapf, M. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock. . International
Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 105119.