18/04/2020
Does it take a culture to fight a global pandemic?
Andreas Andronikidis, Dimitris Karolidis
On the 11th of March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, conveying a message to the world community: the coronavirus is a fast-paced crisis that needs to be taken seriously. The first cases of death due to the COVID-19 pandemic were reported in the region of Wuhan, China. By the end of 2019, when the Chinese authorities first reported it to the World Health Organization (WHO), it was already a full-fledged outbreak. Over the last few months, COVID-19 has spread quickly from China to at least 160 countries and territories. Today, Europe and the United States of America are dealing with the most severe outbreaks outside of China. Within Europe, the virus spread at varying speeds. Population density, the readiness status of the European countries along with their responses to the crisis, and the cultural responses of the community are considered as crucial factors for that. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, the European governments had no previous experience of how to deal with it. Some governments, like Greece, performed better, while others like Italy and Spain fared less so. Why is Greece amongst the most effective performers in confronting an extraordinary health-crisis situation so far? Why more advanced countries in terms of size, capabilities and public health systems, like Italy and Spain, failed in doing so? Does it only take an early government reaction to the pandemic and/or the cultural characteristics of the local community, should be seriously taken into account as well?
In this commentary, we draw data from the Hofstede Insights to cast our view over the outbreak in Europe by focusing on the Greek case. We trace challenges associated with the use of a proven framework based on Geert Hofstede’s work to question whether intercultural differences between countries can make a difference in their response (i.e. enhancing their effectiveness) in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory framework proposes six dimfensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, power distance (strength of social hierarchy), masculinity-femininity (task-orientation versus person-orientation), long-term orientation, and indulgence versus self-restraint. Of course, there is room for discussion and debate over the dimensions proposed in the Geert Hofstede framework; however, we will utilize only two of them: uncertainty avoidance and individualism-collectivism. As well, there are prominent colleagues, experts on the subject (too many to mention, and I could be unfair to some if I forgot to include them), who could shed some light on the subject. I hope they do as well as any lay reader of this text.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) accounts for the extent to which the members of a society tend to address ambiguous situations, and is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance. We quote: “…this dimension demonstrates the degree in which a society “programs” its members to feel comfortable or uncomfortable with new, unknown, different or ambiguous situations through culture. By default, cultures that try to avoid uncertainty diminish ambiguous situations through the implementation of strict laws and norms, and security measures that function both in a realistic and abstract, philosophical level” (1).
Greece scores a 100 on this dimension which is the highest score within Hofstede’s framework. It seems that Greeks feel uncomfortable in ambiguous situations. We quote from the same source: “Greeks formulate and follow written or unwritten rules … laws, rules, and norms are extremely critical because they can provide us with a safe environment to live in. In extreme situations, the local community is committed to do what it takes to kill the enemy and to return to a previous, normal situation. As expected this is manifest in extreme conditions by reacting early, by taking aggressive measures, and by forcing the community to conform to the rules”.
In countries scoring low in the uncertainty avoidance dimension, for example Sweden (UAI: 29), citizens voluntarily take measures for their safety, while the state seems to be more interested in securing the rights and personal freedom of its people. By April 8, 2020, the number of confirmed cases in the country had reached a total of 8,419. The government has so far not enforced strict social distancing measures (i.e., lockdown) and remains one of the rare countries with relaxed measures. Instead of imposing stringent measures to contain COVID-19, the state urges its citizens to "behave like adults" rather than fining them for leaving their homes without good reason.
Another argument suggests that UAI is negatively correlated to innovation, which is in turn positively related to change. Does this also account for the fact that Greeks are not known for their modernity while they are not comfortable with “changes”? That they want to “take their time” before making decisions? And how does this relate to our quick reaction to the unexpected situation that the pandemic brought?
Countries scoring low on UAI, like the USA (UAI:46) and United Kingdom (UAI:35), are known for developing innovative solutions and supporting entrepreneurship which are both related to considerable initiative and risk. Could this be the reason that both the USA and the United Kingdom reacted late in the pandemic outbreak? Is it their willingness to take risks and to project a “business as usual” reality that drove them to underestimate the range of the outbreak and be late responders to the COVID-19 pandemic and eventually to the “new conditions? In other words, did the main so called “blessed” characteristic of these societies block their leaders’ early response to the pandemic?
Now, let’s take a look at countries with a closer to an average score on UAI. Germany (UAI:65) responded faster to the pandemic than the UK but later compared to Greece. German people do feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and try to avoid it as well. Since “It is a society that abides by the law, the rules and the norms … the state would ideally want to minimize risk and adopt a stepwise approach” (1). So, what did they do? The government promoted an image of stability (e.g., Mrs. Merkel goes shopping at the supermarket with minimum precautions) but at the same time, they took measures to protect local society, implying that these measures could be more aggressive if needed (and eventually utilized).
Another dimension Hofstede’s framework is Individualism, which reflects the interdependence among members of society, and how one´s self-image is defined through the collective. We quote: “In societies scoring high on this index, people are supposed to look mainly after themselves and their very close ones. Societies scoring low on this index are considered collectivist ones, where people tend to join and maintain groups that take care of them in exchange for loyalty. At a score of 35, Greece is a purely collectivist culture. Greeks seek to join and maintain strong, cohesive in-group relations especially reflected in the extended family (i.e., grandparents and grandkids), and their long-lasting friendships which contribute to a sense of safety and protection” (1). This is an important aspect of Greek society and was made apparent in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic; the main state campaign to inform the citizens on the epidemic is called “We stay at home” and exploits this notion. People are urged to stay at home to protect the vulnerable. And in the case of the pandemic, these are the elder people which are the most defenseless and weak against the virus outbreak. The United States of America score a 91 on this dimension, while Germany and Sweden score 67 and 71 respectively. All these societies emphasize the individual over the entire group; they are oriented around the self, being independent instead of identifying mentally with a group. Could this difference in individual interdependence account for their reaction effectiveness during the pandemic?
And there is also plenty of room for comparing many different countries in terms of their cultural differences and responses to the COVID-19 global pandemic. We do feel there is no universal or unique solution for the management of a global health crisis (or should it be?). The different societal and governmental responses and corresponding measures tend to accommodate the same characteristics of people themselves, and this is the main issue at stake. Every leadership in any country, region, geographic location, and even organization in any microenvirionment, ideally should be capable of offering the best possible solution in times of crisis, based on a mix and facets of the same skills available in the society even those, which in normal times may be perceived as “not blessed or priviledged” or even a weakness. This is exactly what the Greek case illustrates; a high uncertainty avoidance score followed by a low individualism one, could be fueling a country reaction, which proved to be relatively “encouraging” or effective or even “setting the paradigm” for other more “advanced” countries! We do quote from the Guardian: “The country’s ability to cope with a public health emergency of such proportions was not a given. Greece, it is generally agreed, is having a better crisis than may have been expected” (2).
We hope that you are well and adjusting to the “new normal”.
Sources
(1) Hofstede Insights. Visit at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/
(2) How Greece is beating coronavirus despite a decade of debt, 2020. The Guardian. Visit at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/how-greece-is-beating-coronavirus-despite-a-decade-of-debt
