SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

STUDENT DETAILS

Student name: Huỳnh Nguyên Long Student ID number: 22028035

UNIT AND TUTORIAL DETAILS

Unit name: Managing in the Global Environment Unit number: 2031

Saturday 8:00 - 11:15
Tutorial group: BUSM Tutorial day and time: AM
Lecturer or Tutor name: Nguyễn Kim Thảo

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

Title: Comparative Analysis of the Cultural Dimensions of Vietnam and Australia

Length: 800 words Due date: 27 / 02 / 2022 Date submitted: 27 / 02 / 2022
Home campus (where you are enrolled): UEH

DECLARATION

I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from
any other source except where due acknowledgment is made in the assignment.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another (previous or
current) assessment, except where appropriately referenced, and with prior permission from the Lecturer /
Tutor / Unit Coordinator for this unit.
No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where
collaboration has been authorised by the Lecturer / Tutor /Unit Coordinator concerned.
I am aware that this work will be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the
purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism
checking).

Student’s signature: HUỲNH NGUYÊN LONG

Note: An examiner or lecturer / tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been
signed.

ARO 00380 08/15

 WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

MANAGING IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
THE CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
OF AUSTRALIA AND VIETNAM

STUDENT NAME: HUỲNH NGUYÊN LONG

STUDENT ID: 22028035

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2022

 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................2

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................3

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................4

CHAPTER TWO: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS........................................6

1. Initial Assessment.......................................................................................6

2. Individualism..............................................................................................7

3. Long Term Orientation...............................................................................7

REFERENCES...............................................................................................9
 Page |3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Hofstede’s culture dimensions model......................................................................4

Figure 2.1. Hofstede’s culture dimensions comparison of Australia and Vietnam....................5

 Page |4

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Culture, as defined by Tylor (1958), is the intricate aggregate of human knowledge,

belief, art, law, morals, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired as a member

of society. Since culture is integral to societal functions, cultural considerations are

inseparable from business efforts that take place in that environment. Moreover, the success

of international business practices greatly depends on their capability to adapt to varying

cultural settings due to the diversity of cultures.

This study will be utilizing the Hofstede theoretical framework for cross-cultural

communication. Hofstede et al.’s (2010) model of cultural dimensions analysis is a

continuously-refined framework of national cultures, which utilizes factor analysis to

establish and categorize several key aspects of national cultures on a foundational level, as

well as determine the implications of these cultural aspects in all fields of multi-cultural

research.

POWER
DISTANCE

INDULGENCE INDIVIDUALISM
vs vs
RESTRAINTS COLLECTIVISM

HOFSTEDE'S
CULTURAL
DIMENSIONS

LONG vs MASCULINITY
SHORT TERM vs
ORIENTATION FEMININITY

UNCERTAINTY
AVOIDANCE
 Page |5

Figure 1.1. Hofstede’s culture dimensions model (Hofstede et al., 2010).

This paper aims to apply Hofstede’s framework to determine cultural differences and

similarities between Vietnam and Australia, simultaneously evaluating the potential impact of

these cultural factors in the global management environment between these nations.

Specifically, a comparative analysis will be conducted with the sole focus on the two

dimensions of Individualism and Long-term orientation, as they are capable of providing the

most thorough insight into stark differences between the two national cultures. Through

extensive evaluation of these dimensions, managers of multinational enterprises operating

across Vietnam and Australia may improve their benchmarking of business operations

capabilities, and develop a higher-quality implementation of managerial strategies.

 Page |6

CHAPTER TWO: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

1. Initial Assessment

Dimensions / Scores Australia Vietnam World average

Power Distance 38 70 42

Individualism 90 20 32

Masculinity 61 40 35

Uncertainty Avoidance 51 30 48

Long Term Orientation 21 57 39

Indulgence 71 35 40

Figure 2.1. Hofstede’s culture dimensions comparison of Australia and Vietnam

(Hofstede, 2016).

A general observation of the scores assigned to Australia and Vietnam in the table

above reveals drastic differences between the two national cultures, which are sustained

across all dimensions. With that said, a sizable disparity between the evaluations by itself

does not necessarily represent a major distinction between the cultural characteristics of these

two countries.

More specifically, in terms of Masculinity, the dimension which measures the extent

to which competitiveness and assertiveness are favored over modesty and affection (Hofstede

Insights, 2022), both countries possess figures above the global average of 35. From this

information, one can infer that while Vietnam is considerably less “masculine” than Australia,

the former is still accepted to be generally more aggressive and decisive than the majority of

national cultures around the world. Therefore, either culture can be considered “masculine”

by the framework’s standards.

 Page |7

2. Individualism

The dimension of Individualism represents the level of cohesion maintained among

individuals. The score signifies the society’s tendencies to group its members into

organizations, based on common societal structures such as families and work teams.

Australia is among the most highly individualistic societies in the world. Members of

this culture are encouraged to be self-reliant and independent. Australia’s high individualism

embodies the Western cultures’ archetypal ideologies, which promote an individual’s self-

worth and ideals. In an individualistic business environment, workers are recognized for their

unique and distinctive efforts, which are the foundation for stimulating innovation and

engagement (Morris et al., 1994).

On the other hand, Vietnam’s collectivist culture reflects on the influence of dominant

Asian ideologies of the region. Historically, the Vietnamese population predominantly

followed Confucianism or Buddhism, two philosophical ideals that uphold conformity and

solidarity, as followers are taught that it is their utmost duty to contribute to the collective

whole and that individual values should not be prioritized over societal wellbeing (Park et al.,

2005). As a result, Vietnamese workers tend to be more team-oriented. Individuals within a

group are less likely to take credit for their efforts, while groupwork successes are shared

equally among participants.

3. Long Term Orientation

Long Term Orientation indicates the culture’s view towards the connection between

the past, present as well as future. The index presents a societal preference for beneficial

actions, either in the short-run (Normative) or the long-run (Pragmative).

Australia’s normative approach manifests in the culture’s desire for short-term gains.

Australians are generally more inclined towards fulfilling current obligations and appreciating

traditions. They have a greater propensity to use acquired assets for immediate investment
 Page |8

opportunities, and their plans are also mostly limited to short windows of time, which affect

their business decisions and economic operations to be less adaptable and more prone to

defaulting to past solutions (Culpepper & Smith, 2017).

Meanwhile, Vietnamese culture possesses a more pragmatic attitude. Members of this

society choose to focus on future preparations, often at the cost of present benefits, and they

are not afraid to dynamically alter traditions according to their needs. In the workplace,

Vietnam’s orientation also propels them towards saving up and preparing for future events,

rather than use up funds for momentary returns.

 Page |9

REFERENCES

Anon, 2022. Country comparison. Hofstede Insights. Available at: https://www.hofstede-

insights.com/country-comparison/australia,vietnam/ [Accessed February 26, 2022].

Anthony J. Culpepper, E.D. & J. Goosby Smith, P.D., 2017. To tell or not to tell? - a peer-
reviewed academic articles: GBR. Graziadio Business Review | Graziadio School of
Business and Management | Pepperdine University. Available at:
https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/to-tell-or-not-to-tell/ [Accessed February 27, 2022].

Fernando, J., 2022. Understanding globalization. Investopedia. Available at:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/globalization.asp [Accessed February 25, 2022].

Hofstede, G., 2016. Dimension data matrix. Geert Hofstede. Available at:
https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/ [Accessed February
26, 2022].

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Available at:
https://e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/900222/mod_resource/content/1/
G.Hofstede_G.J.Hofstede_M.Minkov%20-%20Cultures%20and%20Organizations%20-
%20Software%20of%20the%20Mind%203rd_edition%202010.pdf [Accessed February
25, 2022].

Morris, M.H., Davis, D.L. & Allen, J.W., 1994. Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-
cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(1), pp.65–89.

Park, H., Rehg, M.T. & Lee, D., 2005. The influence of Confucian ethics and collectivism on
whistleblowing intentions: A Study of South Korean Public Employees. Journal of
Business Ethics, 58(4), pp.387–403.

Tylor, E.B., 1958. Primitive culture, New York u.a.: Harper & Row.