Cultural Values in India and Malaysia: A Comparative Study Essay

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the cultures of India and Malaysia, focusing on the globalized business environment. It utilizes the Hofstede Model to contrast the two cultures across dimensions such as power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence, highlighting key differences in hierarchy appreciation, collectivism, gender roles, and societal norms. The essay further employs Trompenaars dimensions and Ferraro's model to explore aspects like universalism vs. particularism, consensus orientation, diffuse vs. specific culture, ascription, and attitudes toward time, revealing similarities in religious significance and societal relationships, while noting differences in pragmatism and masculinity. The analysis concludes that while both countries share cultural values, notable distinctions exist, particularly in India's stronger emphasis on pragmatism and masculinity compared to Malaysia.

SOCIOLOGY 1
With the globalised business environment, workplaces are becoming more culturally
diverse with the inclusion of workforce from varied areas of globe. The paper is
aimed at comparing the cultures of India (country of origin) and Malaysia (country of
choice).
In terms of the Hofstede Model, the comparison and contrast of the cultures of India
and Malaysia is presented as follows. In terms of first pillar of the model that is the
power distance, India has a higher appreciation of top-down structure and hierarchy
in organizations and in society as compared to Malaysia (Taras, Steel and Kirkman,
2011). Thus, the individuals in an organisation are more dependent on directions in
India unlike in Malaysia. For the second dimension of Individualism, India, is a
society possessing both collectivistic and Individualist traits. An instance of the belief
lies in religion belief of Hinduism where an individual is responsible for his or her own
life. In contrast to this Malaysia is more of a collectivist society where strong
relationships are fostered and everyone takes responsibility for fellow members
(Jogulu and Ferkins, 2012). For third criteria of masculinity, it must be noted that
India is considered a Masculine society with display of more men in success and
power. There is more natural inclination towards men as evident from the cultural
practices and religious philosophies. For Malaysia, there is a balance masculine and
feminine characteristics. The country Malaysia has a low preference for avoiding
uncertainty which is evident by the flexible work schedules, and innovation is not
seen as threatening. The country India too has a low medium preference for avoiding
uncertainty, the rules are mostly existing the place, but generally are meant to be
surpassed. In terms of long term orientation, Malaysia has a normative culture, in
contrast to this in India there is an absence of a clear dominant preference in Indian
culture and a lot reliance has been laid on the concept of “karma.” Indian societies
are more pragmatic and have a great tolerance for varied religious views. For the
next dimension of Indulgence, India has a culture of restraint or savings, and not
much emphasis is laid down on leisure time and desires are often controlled. In
contrast to this, the culture of Malaysia is more indulgent and people of the societies
exhibit a willingness to fulfil the enjoyment and desires in life. A great focus is laid on
leisure time as the money is spent in the manner people like. Thus, as per the
Hofstede model, the culture of India and Malaysia greatly varies in terms of power
distance, individualism and indulgence. In rest of the dimensions, there is no strong

SOCIOLOGY 2
variation in both the cultures, with India ranking superior to Malaysia in terms of
cultural values of uncertainty avoidance, long terms orientation and masculinity.
The comparison of the cultures of India and Malaysia through the aid of the
Trompeanaars dimensions and as per the Ferraros model,is stated as follows. In
terms of Universalism and Particularism, India is a fairly particularistic oriented
culture as evident through the apparent focus of Indians on relationships (Kulkarni,
2012). Similarly in Malaysia too, social groups are preferred over the universalist
system (Ramalu et. al, 2010). Further to state, India is a consensus – oriented
culture where there is priority to cooperation. Similar culture is evident in Malaysia as
demonstrated through the ‘Kampong’ (village) culture (Rahman, Hasshim and
Rozali, 2015). Further to note, India is a relatively diffuse culture as there are strong
connections established between the private lives and work lives. In slight contrast to
this, there is no distinct characteristics in Malaysian work environment in terms of
specific or diffuse culture as the people are generally known to be friendly. It must be
essentially noted that India mostly values ascription because of strong reliance on
caste system till today as evident in reservations in various fields. In Malaysia the
caste system is not prevalent, in spite of a lot of Indian people in the country. The
country India further has a more outer directed culture similar to that of Malaysia. It
must also be noted that India is a synchronic oriented culture and the similar values
are instilled in Malaysians as they too are not very punctual at work and social
priorities are given more preference over time. Religion too is a significant aspect of
both the countries. In terms of education systems both the countries have similar
landscapes where primary students have maximum rate of education and cultures
and caste systems often create hindrances in education.
Thus, as per the discussions conducted in the previous parts it can be states that
there is a strong similarity in cultural values of India and Malaysia. The points of
similarities are the significance of religions, attitude towards time, and overall societal
relationships. The point of difference is mostly in terms of India is that country is
more pragmatic and still has a strong display of masculinity in the society as
opposed to Malaysian society.

SOCIOLOGY 3
References
Jogulu, U. and Ferkins, L. (2012) Leadership and culture in Asia: The case of
Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4), pp. 531-549.
Kulkarni, S. (2012) A study on cultural diversity management for Indian
organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, pp. 267-276.
Rahman, A. A., Hasshim, S. A. and Rozali, R. (2015) Residents’ preference on
conservation of the Malay traditional village in Kampong Morten, Malacca. Procedia-
social and behavioral sciences, 202, pp. 417-423.
Ramalu, S. S., Rose, R. C., Uli, J., and Kumar, N. (2010) Personality and cross-
cultural adjustment among expatriate assignees in Malaysia. International Business
Research, 3(4), 96.
Taras, V., Steel, P., and Kirkman, B. (2011) Three decades of research on national
culture in the workplace: Do the differences still make a difference?. Organizational
Dynamics, 40(3), pp. 189-198.