2. CALIDAD DE LA CARNE
2.3. RAZA, EDAD Y SEXO
2.3.2. COMPOSICIÓN DE LOS ALIMENTOS
Zealand
In 1980, both Malaysia and New Zealand were included in Hofstede’s
(1980) index scores and rankings of cultural values. The index scores and rankings
were determined from surveys with IBM employees conducted in 50 countries. As Malaysia is not included in the study pertaining to ‘long term versus short term
orientation’ by Hofstede (1991), the comparison for this dimension between
Malaysia and New Zealand is unlikely and therefore, this study would only focus
on the four cultural dimensions provided by Hofstede (1980). Table 2.3
summarizes the index scores and rankings for each four cultural dimensions for
79
Table 2.3 Hofstede’s (1980) National Cultural Dimensions for Malaysia and New Zealand
Cultural dimensions
Malaysia New Zealand
Score Rank Score Rank
Power Distance 104 (High) 1 22 (Low) 49 Uncertainty Avoidance 36 (Low) 46 49 (High) 39 Individualism- Collectivisim 26 (Collectivist) 36 79 (Individualist) 6 Masculinity- Femininity 50 (Masculine) 25 58 (Masculine) 17
Source: Adapted from Goodwin and Goodwin (1999, p. 270).
The above index scores and rankings suggest that Malaysia and New
Zealand are different in three cultural dimensions and fairly similar in one cultural
dimension. Hofstede (2007) argues that the most obvious differences between the
Asian and Anglo-Saxon cultures are the Individualism-Collectivism and Power
Distance dimension. As presented in the summary in Table 2.3 above, Hofstede
(1980) proposes that Malaysia is high in Power Distance, low in Uncertainty
Avoidance, a Collectivist and Masculine society. New Zealand, however, is
classified as low in Power Distance, high in Uncertainty Avoidance, an
Individualist and also a Masculine society. Nonetheless, New Zealand society is
considered to be more masculine compared to Malaysia based on the index scores
and ranking.
Malaysia, which is located in South East Asia practices Asian values
80
and those higher in the hierarchy in society or an organization, is reflected in the
way people are addressed at home, society and the workplace. To address an uncle for instance, the titles of ‘Pakcik’ (in Malay), ‘Shushu’ (in Chinese) and ‘Anne’’ (in
Indian) have to be used before addressing their names (Abdullah, 1996). The
emphasis on status and hierarchy indicates the practice of a high Power Distance
society which results in centralized power in decision making and subordinates are
expected to accept direction from superiors (Lim, 2001). It is also rude for instance,
for subordinates to openly disagree with superiors especially in public (Abdullah,
1996).
Notwithstanding that Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, all ethnics in
Malaysia believe in a closely-knit, strong family relationship, which reflects a
Collectivist society (Mohd Iskandar and Pourjalali, 2000). Since Power Distance is
more apparent in Malaysia based on Hofstede’s (1980) study, the decision making,
is thus influenced more by the Power Distance rather than Collectivism which is
translated into autocratic decision making. Therefore, while group decision making
is important it is possible to be over-ridden by the decision made by the leader
(Lim, 2001).
In a low Uncertainty Avoidance society, the members are more willing to
take risks (Hofstede, 1980) and thus more acceptable to mistakes since priority is
on maintaining harmony, ensuring good relationship and saving face. Kennedy
(2002), for instance, found that Malaysian managers avoid giving negative remarks
to their subordinates to maintain harmony and Lim (2001) argues that any
disagreement will be communicated indirectly as a way to save face. In terms of
81
(1980). A Masculine society emphasizes on the gender role pattern in society, has
the attribute of assertiveness, focus on material success rather than quality of life.
Lim (2001), for instance, found that regardless of ethnicities, the level of
masculinity among Malays and Chinese managers is identical which suggests the
convergence of values between ethnics due to the government policies.
Brooking (2004) suggests that New Zealand is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural
society which the population is dominated by the European descendants. There is
also a suggestion that New Zealand is a bi-cultural country, comprising two
distinct cultures of the indigenous Maori and Pakeha, the European settlers (Mir, Chatterjee, and Rahaman, 2009). As a result of the dominant European descendants
in New Zealand, New Zealand society in general is influenced more by the Anglo-
Celtic culture (Brooking, 2004) or Anglo-Saxon culture (Kennedy, 2012). Therefore, it is not surprising that the Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) cultural dimensions
for New Zealand reflect the culture of Pakeha.
The findings by Kennedy (2000; 2012), for example, indicate that New
Zealand is low in Power Distance which is consistent with Hofstede’s (1980)
proposition. The egalitarian characteristics are visible in the New Zealand culture
which proposes that people should be treated equally in all aspects of life. For
instance, the use of first names is common in all levels of age from home, at
school, and the workplace (Kennedy, 2000). Hofstede (1980) also suggests that
New Zealand is an Individualist society. The existence of an Individualist culture is
also reported in a study by Goodwin and Goodwin (1999), which found that New
Zealand students are less willing to include their team members in a study project
82
than other team members. The findings from a study with business managers in
New Zealand by Kennedy (2000) also supported the argument that New Zealand
culture reflects an Individualist culture. In New Zealand, it is common for young
people to be independent leaving their family to stay on their own and it is
uncommon to see adults staying with the older generation (Kennedy, 2012).
New Zealand is classified as a Masculine society by Hofstede (1980). This
is perhaps further supported by Kennedy (2000), who found that New Zealand is a
male oriented society, which encourages high performance orientation, such as
taking pride as the first to climb Mount Everest and the first to fly directly from
England to New Zealand. New Zealand is also considered to be a high Uncertainty Avoidance society in Hofstede’s (1980) study. The study by Kennedy (2000) found
that the desire for security and stability in daily life is prevalent among business
managers in New Zealand, which is translated into a high score for Uncertainty
Avoidance.
More than 30 years have passed since Hofstede’s (1980) study of cultural
values and there are possibilities that over the years, the cultural values of Malaysia
and New Zealand have changed. For instance, based on a review of cultural
changes in Malaysia between the period of 1987 to 1997 by Mohd Iskandar and
Pourjalali (2000), the magnitude of the index scores has changed due to a fairer
distribution of national wealth, urban migration, improved quality of life, and equal
education and career opportunities. In a similar vein, the findings from Lim (2001)
also indicate that Malaysians are moving towards a more egalitarian, stressful and
individualistic society. A study by Yeoh (1999) also found contradictory results between Hofstede’s (1980) original scores and Hofstede’s (1980) National Cultural
83
Dimension scores in her study among Malaysian and New Zealand accounting
students. Using the Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) by Hofstede (1994),
Masculinity was the only dimension that was supported to have the same direction
as proposed by Hofstede (1980) for both Malaysia and New Zealand.
Recently, more comprehensive evidence is provided from the meta-analysis
findings of Taras et al. (2012). The meta-analysis of studies using Hofstede’s
Values Survey Module (VSM) by Taras et al. (2012) indicates that Malaysia is still
higher in Power Distance compared to New Zealand. However, the level of Power
Distance has been decreasing in both countries. Notwithstanding that Malaysia
remains a Collectivist society, based on the meta-analytic scores, Malaysia is
moving towards being an Individualist society. New Zealand is still considered as
Individualist even though there is a slight decrease between the periods of the
1990s to 2000s.
Over the period of the 2000s both Malaysia and New Zealand are
considered as low Uncertainty Avoidance societies. The meta-analysis also shows
that both Malaysia and New Zealand are moving towards becoming a more
Feminine society. Overall, Taras et al. (2012) argue that the precision of Hofstede’s (1980) scores is decreasing over time much faster than projected by
Hofstede (2001). The scores from the meta-analysis for each cultural dimension
from 1980s to 2000s with respect to Malaysia and New Zealand are presented in
84
Table 2.4 Standardized meta-analytic scores of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module for Malaysia and New Zealand
Cultural Dimensions / Period
Malaysia New Zealand
1980s 1990s 2000s 1980s 1990s 2000s Power Distance 2.13 1.47 0.21 -0.90 -0.68 -1.04 Uncertainty Avoidance -0.69 0.34 -0.64 -0.15 -0.22 -1.13 Individualism- Collectivism -1.29 -0.95 -0.93 0.69 1.37 1.03 Masculinity- Femininity 0.31 0.17 -0.11 0.59 -0.09 N/A
Note: The 1980s’ scores refer to Hofstede’s original scores after being standardized to
ensure comparability with the meta-analysis score. Standardized meta-analytic scores should be between -2 to 2, while 0 means neutral.
Source: Taras et al. (2012, p. 334-337).