Page 252 - Cultures and Organizations

What Is Different Is Dangerous 225

children. We don’t know how the Riedl children experienced the incident
or whether they became as prejudiced as their parents. Feelings of dan-
ger may be directed toward minorities (or even minorities from the past),
toward immigrants and refugees, and toward citizens of other countries.
Data from a European Commission report entitled Racism and Xenophobia
in Europe (1997) showed that the opinion that immigrants should be sent
back was strongly correlated with uncertainty avoidance. In IBM it had
already been found that foreign managers were less well accepted in high-
UAI countries. 65
Feelings toward other nations vary not only with uncertainty avoid-
ance but also with masculinity. The combination was illustrated in Figure
6.1. The Axis powers from World War II (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were
all located in the lower right-hand quadrant: strong uncertainty avoid-
ance plus masculinity. Under the conditions prior to the war, ethnocentric,
xenophobic, and aggressive tendencies could get the upper hand in these
countries more easily than in countries with different culture patterns.

Fascism and racism find their most fertile ground in cultures with strong
uncertainty avoidance plus pronouncedly masculine values. The paradox
is that these same values in the postwar period contributed to these coun-
tries’ fast economic recovery. A culture’s weaknesses may in different cir-
cumstances become its strengths.
The combination of uncertainty avoidance and individualism, illus-
trated in Figure 6.2, suggests the different ways in which societies deal

with intergroup conflict. The presence within the borders of a country of
different ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups is a historical fact; some
countries are more homogeneous than others. How a population and a

government deal with such conflict, however, is a cultural phenomenon.
In countries in the upper right-hand corner, strong uncertainty avoidance

(“what is different is dangerous”) is combined with collectivist exclusion-
ism (strong identification with in-groups). Such countries often attempt to

eliminate intergroup conflict by denying it and trying either to assimilate
or to repress minorities. The chances of violent intergroup strife within
these countries are considerable, as the minorities often hold the same
strong uncertainty avoiding, collectivist values. Countries with severe
intergroup conflicts within the upper right-hand quadrant of Figure 6.2

are Serbia, Arab countries, and Turkey. Indonesia and African countries
are close to this quadrant.
Countries in the upper left-hand corner of Figure 6.2, such as Malaysia
and Singapore, may contain different groups with strong group identities