Definitions information (Hall 1979). Hence, ‘the spoken word

Definitions and Summary


Definitions of Two Theories of Cross Cultural

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
100% plagiarism free
Sources and citations are provided

Get essay help


Power Distance Theory of Cross Cultural


Power distance theory refers
to cultures where social hierarchy and distribution of influence is dominant. According to Hofstede (1997), in cultures with high
power distance, emphasis is placed on respecting elders from the early age, and
this remains predominant even throughout the adulthood. Hence, every setup in
such cultures is centralized with autocratic leadership style where it is
expected from the employees to be submissive to the authorities. On the
contrary, Hofstede (1997) explains that cultures with low power distance do not
find inequality acceptable; employees participate in decision making and the
leadership style is more democratic.


High and Low Context Theory of Cross Cultural

High and low context theory refers to whether the communication style
is more explicit or implicit. In cultures with high context, the verbal words
do not provide complete meanings and facial expressions and other gestures are
equally significant. Hall (1979) explains it by emphasizing that the actual
meaning carries little weight. In contradiction to this, in low context
communication system expressions are explicit and what is said is sufficient
information (Hall 1979). Hence, ‘the spoken word carries most of the meaning’
(Storti 1999, p. 92). People would be more straightforward and would regard
getting and giving enough information during their social interactions.



Before the
US-based company acquired the Danish company, the employees had a sense of
belongingness to their workplace. During and after the completion of
acquisition, there prevailed a general sense of demotivation and aloofness
amongst the workers. According to Breiner and Minei (2017), the major threats
to a successful cultural integration between the Danish and American companies included:
(a) Awareness of hierarchical communication difference; (b) communication as
misdirection; and (c) reflection on consequences. The employees were retained
from the old setup. In the new setup, they struggled to adhere to the business
culture being carried by the Americans. They found it hard replacing internal
communication that they were familiar with, new alien ways of conducting


As the
participatory communication deteriorated, workers’ involvement decreased, as a
result of which there was a fall in job satisfaction, hence, increasing
employee exodus. The study reveals how the American style of information
regarding any progress with the acquisition did not match the Danish expectations
of direct communication and hence lead to frustration, chaos, mistrust and
uncertainty among the employees. Representation from both the national cultures
is important, if any is ignored in the new alliance, the company is prone to
experience negative effects of the neglect.