Philippine Cultural Dimensions: Changed or Not?

“That person speaks English really well, he is very smart.” Maybe we heard this line at least once

in our lives. It cannot be denied that here in the Philippines, speaking English fluently is pretty much

directed to being intelligent and highly educated. Filipinos have high respect and they look up to fellow

Filipinos who speak English really well. According to Acuña and Rodriguez (1996), among all the

variables, educational levels are most correlated with more masculinity, more individualism, lower power

distance, and lower uncertainty avoidance. It is difficult to assert the Philippine belief that if a person is

exposed to formal education, one must be fluent in English. Moreover, according to Bautista and Bolton

(2008), given current global realities, it is difficult to argue against the contention that Filipino students

must gain proficiency in English to become more competitive. It can be observed that even until now

Filipinos still perceive English proficiency with a high education level, an advantage in the competitive

business world, and a necessity in the workplace.

Strong family ties and collectivism in the Philippines should be accounted for because these

social behaviors affect one’s perception of being a “true” Filipino. According to Kritz (2011), the

components of “​utang na loob”--​the respect for tradition, social obligations, and maintaining a good

reputation--are signs of the Filipino culture’s low long-term orientation. Also, he stated that power distance

in the Philippine workplace is still high because even today because of this concept that a person with an

“​utang na loob” t​ o another person feels inferior. Furthermore, this concept reveals the Philippines’ high

power distance because the idea of violating it is still repugnant to most Filipinos. Kritz (2011) added that

Filipinos still have a low measure of individuality since “​pakikisama​” is still being observed in the

workplace. The camaraderie and loyalty of “​pakikisama” within the organization is a primary motivation in

Filipino organizations (Selmer and De Leon, 2014).

Rodriguez and Hechanova (2014) conducted a study about how cultural dimensions can affect

innovation in Information Technology (IT) teams. Uncertainty avoidance still has a significant value in the

conducted experiment and uncertainty avoidance was positively correlated to both exploration and

exploitation behaviors in the team. Furthermore, results in the same study also showed that masculinity

contributed significantly to explorative behavior and there was no support for the effect of masculinity on

exploitative behavior.

Platero, Ella Jane D. | 2015-12627 | BA 158 WFR PAPER NO. 2

 In addition, Salvosa and Hechanova (2017) conducted a study regarding how employees in

different generations affect the workplace. They found two generations in the workplace-- one group was

labeled as the political generation (Marcos, Aquino, Ramos, and Estrada administration) and the other

one was labeled as the technology generation (internet, social networking, and digital technologies). The

researchers found significant differences in how the two generations describe themselves. The political

generation ​described themselves as family-oriented, work-centered, and decisive. The technology

generation described themselves as being tech-savvy, carefree, laid-back, individualistic,

self-centered, and adventurous. There were also differences in leadership approaches. The political

generation identified these characteristics as important: one who cares about people’s welfare,

delegates and is controlling. On the other hand, the technology generation’s definition of effective

leaders are those who give clear instructions, listen to, and recognize their followers.

From everything stated, it can be implied that some traits may change as generation ages

but some cultural aspects still remain. The level of power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

collectivism, masculinity, and long-term orientation in the Philippines still didn’t perform a significant

increase or decrease as to Hofstede’s study in the 1980s and ​ Acuña and Rodriguez’s study in 1996.

References:

● Kritz, B. (2011). Cultural Dimensions: An Insight into Philippine Dysfunction. Academia.

https://rb.gy/hkmdn9

● Philippine English​. (2008). Google Books. https://rb.gy/2gffei

● Selmer, J., & De Leon, C. (2002). ​Management and culture in the Philippines​. Hong Kong:

Business Research Centre, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University

● Rodriguez, P. R. (2014). ​A Study of Culture Dimensions, Organizational Ambidexterity, and

Perceived Innovation in Teams​. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation.

https://rb.gy/8ifxea

● Hechanova, G. (2017, September 19) Generations in the Philippine Workplace.​ Ateneo de Manila

University. https://rb.gy/dlpdx0

Platero, Ella Jane D. | 2015-12627 | BA 158 WFR PAPER NO. 2