This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this

version to appear here (http://dspace.nelson.usf.edu). Emerald does not grant permission for
this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
The final version of this article was published in Equal Opportunities International,
2003, 22(1),13 31. doi: 10.1108/02610150310787298

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF MACHISMO IN GENDER DISCRIMINATION: A

COMPARISON OF MEXICO AND THE U.S.

SHARON L. SEGREST, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Management
College of Business & Economics
California State University, Fullerton
P.O. Box 6848
Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA
Tel: 1-714-278-4555
Fax: 1-714-278-2645
Email: ssegrest@fullerton.edu

ERIC J. ROMERO, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Management
College of Business Administration
University of Texas Pan American
1201 West University Drive
Edinburg, TX 78539-2999
(956) 381-3351

DARLA J. DOMKE-DAMONTE, Ph.D.

Department of Management and Marketing
E. Craig Wall Sr. School of Business Administration
Coastal Carolina University
Conway, SC 29528
Tel: 843 349 2129
Fax: 843 349 2881

Email: ddamonte@coastal.edu

ABSTRACT

This conceptual paper explores how the construct of machismo can influence genderbased discrimination across two cultures; Mexico and the U.S. First, the relevant literature on
machismo is reviewed and the construct clarified. Secondly, evidence is presented which
indicates that masculine gender roles are not innate, but rather also heavily influenced by cultural
factors. Hofstedes value dimensions are used to develop propositions about the effect of
masculinity on gender-based discrimination. We suggest propositions designed to explain how
programs aimed at eliminating or reducing gender-based discrimination might be impacted by
high levels of cultural masculinity.

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF MACHISMO IN GENDER DISCRIMINATION: A

COMPARISON Of MEXICO AND THE U.S.

As companies expand their operations around the globe, many are attempting to develop
company-wide policies that govern the hiring, employment, and promotion policies. However, it
is commonly understood that occupational segregation by sex is extensive in every region, at all
economic development levels, under all political systems, and in diverse religious, social, and
cultural environments round the world (Anker, 1997). More specificaly, with the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the growing
number of maquiladoras in Mexico, more attention is being placed upon working conditions in
Mexico. Mexicos maquiladoras have recently been cited for gender-based discrimination
violations of the codes of the International Labor Organization, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (Human Rights Watch, 1996).
Researchers have attempted to explain gender discrimination using many different
socioeconomic rubrics: neoclassical, human capital theories; institutional and labor market
segmentation theories; and non-economic or feminist/gender theories (Anker, 1997). In his
overview of the usefulness of these various theories for explaining occupational segregation and
pay discrimination based on gender, Anker (1997) indicates that the gender-based theories have
the most explanatory power. More specifically, he suggests that cross-cultural differences are
important predictors of occupational segregation; with cultures that emphasis masculine role
definitions being the most egregious perpetrators.

MEXICAN CULTURE, MANAGEMENT STYLE AND MAQUILADORAS

Before proceeding further, it is important to define several terms used throughout this
paper. The definition of culture by House, Wright & Aditya (1997) will be used in this study
because of its comprehensive nature. They define culture as follows: Cultures are distinctive
normative systems consisting of model patterns of shared psychological properties among
members of collectivities that result in compelling common affective, attitudinal, and behavioral
orientations that are transmitted across generations and that differentiate collectivities from each
other (p. 539-540). The phrase shared psychological properties refers to motives, beliefs,
values, assumptions, social identities and meanings that people in a culture have in common.

Mexican Culture
An important element of Mexican culture is social hierarchy and harmony. Mexican
organizations generally use top down communication. Mexicans expect to receive orders yet this
does not usually result in conflict. Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate & Bautista (1997) found
that leaders in Mexico are expected to be directive and avoid conflict. Previous researchers
(Stephens & Greer, 1995; Dorfman & Howell, 1997) have characterized Mexican leaders as
autocratic and paternalistic. According to Diaz-Guerrero (1979), Mexican coping style is
principally focused on self-modification such as passively tolerating stress, problems and other
difficulties. He defines coping style as the way people manage stress and problems. The Mexican
coping style contributes to social harmony in work groups and society by reducing external
attempts at conflict resolution. Mexicans can also be described as group oriented. Chemers &
Ayman (1985) found that in Mexico, a leaders satisfaction with co-workers and supervisors was
4

positively related to group and individual performance. This finding suggests that successful
leaders in Mexico are relationship and group oriented. Kras (1994) has a similar position,
indicating that Mexican managers have a tendency to be relationship oriented.
There is evidence that Mexican culture is changing due to several factors. Ingelehart &
Caraballo (1997) found that Mexican culture has changed considerably from 1981 to 1990 and
seems to be evolving towards a culture that is similar to those found in more economically
prosperous countries. One possible explanation for this change in culture is the effect of
economic development. Hofstede (1983) suggests that more prosperous countries tend to be have
cultures that are more individualistic. As Mexico becomes more affluent, its culture may develop
norms favoring higher levels of individualism.
Another factor affecting Mexican culture is the integration of women in the workforce.
Muller & Rowell (1997) indicate that Mexican women have made substantial gains in securing
management and administrative level positions in Mexico. They characterize female Mexican
managers as delegating responsibilities, encouraging open communication, supporting
employees, using nonabrasive problem solving processes, and prioritizing staff development. It
seems possible that female Mexican managers are contributing to changes in Mexican culture
through their involvement in the management of organizations. They may contribute to the
evolution of the predominant Mexican management approach from an authoritative style to one
that is more participative.
Interaction with other cultures is another possible source of change in Mexican culture
and management style. Trade and foreign investment has increased significantly in the U.S.
Mexico border region (Brouthers, McCray & Wilkinson, 1999) due in part to Mexicos
economic development policies (Sargent & Matthews, 2001). This increase in investment has led

to intense interaction with American and other multinational firms, which is contributing to
changes in Mexican management style. Stephens and Greer (1995) found that Mexican managers
working for firms along the U.S. border tend to develop managerial styles that are similar to
those of American managers. It is common for Mexicans who live on the border to be educated
in the United States; making them quite familiar with American culture. It is also common for
people in the interior of Mexico to refer to Mexicans from the border region as Americanized.
Maquiladoras are certainly contributing to the Americanization of the border region and other
parts of Mexico.

Maquiladoras
Maquiladoras are assembly, manufacturing and processing facilities located in Mexico,
mostly along the border with the U.S. (Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia, 2001). Companies
establish maquiladoras primarily to take advantage of plentiful low cost labor. Most
maquiladoras are owned by U.S. firms (Lindquist, 2001) while the remainder are operated by
multinational firms from other nations such as Taiwan, Germany (Solis, Raghu-Nathan, & Rao,
2000.), Korea, and Japan (Paik & Sohn, 1998).
Maquiladoras are an integral component of the Mexican economy (Fullerton & Schauer,
2001) and a significant source of hard currency (Celestino, 1999). Maquiladoras are also
important to U.S. companies by facilitating the reduction in labor costs. Besides lower wages,
labor adjustment costs in Mexico are much lower than in numerous other economically
developing countries (Robertson & Dutkowsky, 2002), which makes Mexico attractive regarding
total labor costs.

MACHISMO

Machismo is a form of masculinity, which typically has a negative connotation and used
to describe how male dominance and superiority are encouraged by parents and societal forces
(Bilmes, 1992; Mayo & Resnick, 1996). The term Machismo is a Spanish word usually used
pejoratively in describing an attitude of male dominance and superiority which is legitimized
through patriarchal social systems and reinforced through cultural values and norms (Bilmes,
1992; Mayo & Resnick, 1996). Latin societies have been influenced by Roman law, which
firmly incorporated males as patriarchs. Some associate machismo with the repeated rise and
fall to political power of men who are able to dominate other men and women (Wolf & Hansen,
1972). For example, the origins of Mexican machismo are thought to be associated with Spanish
conquest (Paz, 1961; Ramos, 1962). The Spanish word macho can also simply signify
masculinity and can even be used in a positive sense, referring to gender pride and identity
(Bilmes, 1992). Nonetheless, the notorious Latin macho image remains vividly implanted in the
minds of many individuals.
Although many people seem to consider machismo as a purely Latino concept, machismo
in the form of ostentatious manliness and often sexist attitudes seems to exist in many societies.
For example, many Arab and Asian societies also display machismo. In Saudi Arabia, women
are not allowed to drive, while in Japan women often have to quit their jobs when they marry.
The machismo attitude has also been associated with U.S. males ranging from the tough
cowboy to the northeastern urban ghetto male (Gilmore, 1990). In both examples, respect is
earned from other men, in part, after a man has established his tough-guy reputation (Gilmore,
1990).

There are different views about this type of masculinity. If masculinity concepts are
highly similar and universal among humans across cultures, then an argument can be made for
the universal or biological roots of masculinity concepts. In this case, companies attempting to
develop worldwide standards for treatment of women will have a somewhat well defined task.
However, if masculinity concepts vary widely across cultures, then an argument can be made for
cultural values as the roots of masculinity. In this case, companies would have great difficulty
incorporating all of the respective value differences regarding the treatment, hiring, and
promotion of women into a single worldwide policy document. Therefore, an important question
is, are the origins of the masculine gender role innate, learned through cultural values, or some
combination of innate and learned? Given the importance of maquiladoras and other direct
investments in Mexico to many American companies, the purpose of this paper is to explore how
the construct of machismo can influence gender discrimination in Mexican and American
cultures.

Types of Machismo
For decades, social scientists such as Diaz-Guerrero (1956) ***not in references*** have
repeatedly emphasized that machismo has not only negative elements, but also positive elements
such as self-respect and a sense of responsibility to the family as provider. Another caveat in
this research deals with perpetuating stereotypical images of Latin machismo. In trying to
understand the Latin concept of masculinity, generalizations are often made and obviously these
generalized stereotypes do not apply to all Latin males.
Thomkins (1979) concisely described what he called the macho personality
constellation using the following three categories: callous sexual attitudes, violence as manly,

and danger as exciting. Similarly, in an effort to clarify the various dimensions of machismo,
Andrade (1992) summarizes four archetypes of machismo which are discussed in the scholarly
and popular literature. These types include the Conqueror macho; the Playboy macho; the
Masked macho; and the Authentic macho. Although individuals may, and probably often do
have qualities related to more than one of these categories, these archetypes can be beneficial as
a heuristic tool.
The Conqueror macho involves supposed invincibility and extreme bravery in fearlessly
facing dangerous situations. Exaggerated sexual potency has also been linked to this archetype.
Pistorleros or gunslingers who seek control over others are classic Conqueror machos. On the
negative side, this type is often ruthless and bloodthirsty. He is always demanding more power
and placing himself above the law and ethical boundaries of society.
It has been argued that this concept of machismo in Mexico has its origins in the Spanish
conquest (Oster, 1989). Some researchers using a psycho-historical perspective, such as Ramos
(1962) and Riding (1985) claim that the root of Mexican machismo lies in the exploitation of
natives by Spanish conquistadors. This idea of a cultural male inferiority complex is somewhat
pessimistic, and in focusing on conquest and colonization as the ultimate causes of cultural
disharmony, these analyses ignore ****source?**** the probability of the origins of
machismo being found in a complex interaction of numerous factors. Nonetheless, the
conquistadors, such as Cortes, do appear to exemplify some aspects of this type of machismo.
These men demonstrated bravery in many dangerous situations where they were vastly
outnumbered in a foreign land.
U. S. history does not have a large-scale conquest similar to Mexicos, perhaps because
the native population in North America was sparser and more dispersed. Yet, the American

culture also demonstrates this type of Conqueror macho to a certain degree. The strong and
fearless Western Cowboy, gangsters, and U. S. film heroes such as Rambo clearly fit this
category.
The second archetype is the Playboy macho, which is based on a sense of a mans
biological, social, and intellectual superiority over females. Fernando Penalosa (1968) in his
study of the Mexican family, found strong evidence for this type of machismo. According to this
stereotype, males are permitted to act in a sexually suggestive manner toward females and to
even abuse them sexually, physically, or mentally. This attitude of superiority allows men to
immerse themselves in pleasurable sensations such as chasing women and committing adultery.
Many Latin American males feel free to have mistresses, which perhaps reflects chauvinistic and
macho attitudes.
Obviously, American culture demonstrates similar attitudes, but perhaps to a lesser
degree. An example is this stereotype is U. S. construction worker who whistles and makes
comments to women. Rock stars such as Elvis Presley and athletic heroes epitomize this
attitude. According to Andrade, Hugh Heffner, wrote about his philosophy of the playboy in the
mid-1960. To the Playboy a girl is something, like a sports car or a bottle of scotch or an Ivy
League suit, that is meant to be used and enjoyed by men (1992, p. 36). Sexism, although
becoming less acceptable in the U.S., still endures as is evidenced in organizations by the
remaining gap between the sexes in representation at the highest organizational levels and salary
inequality (Larwood, 1991).
The third less common archetype is the Masked macho. This type describes the man who
hides his intentions behind a mask through guile and cunning. This type is often considered a
rebel and may have power seeking tendencies. He is the fighter for oppressed people in society.

10

An example in Mexican history that seems to fit this macho type is the legendary Pancho Villa;
although some may suggest he had tendencies related to the Playboy archetype as well.
American western heroes such as Billy the Kid and Jesse James also fit into this category.
Finally, the Authentic macho is the man who simply tries to be a responsible husband and
father. This is a more balanced individual who believes in honor, respect, strength, dignity, and
protection of the family. This corresponds to one of the types of machismo espoused by Mirande
(1986) called the ethical perspective which involves earning respect from family and/or
community members. Because they are less exaggerated and less exciting than other types, this
type is not as popularized in legends, literature, and movies.
According to Andrade (1992), Cuauhtemoc, the last Emperor of the Aztec empire, fits
this archetype. According to legend, Cuauhtemoc resisted telling the Spanish conquistador,
Cortes, the location of the hidden Aztec treasure. Even though he was tortured by having his
feet burnt by the Spaniards, and eventually hung, he was able to keep his secret to protect his
people. Some Mexican American migrant farm workers are also representative of this archetype
in that he accepts his low status in society and responsibly works with dignity through long and
difficult hours in the field. Atticus Finch, the father in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird,
represents an authentic macho as does Bill Cosby. In the case of the authentic macho, it once
again appears that the masculine archetype is not unique to Latin cultures. Therefore, it is
important to consider the extent to which machismo is a universal trait evolving across cultural
groups. The next section addresses this issue.

11

GENDER ROLE DIFFERENCES ACROSS CULTURES

In many societies, it is common for males to very concerned with economic
achievements, while females are primarily concerned with achievements related to nurture.
Margaret Mead (1962) in an effort to explain gender role differentiation, states that women
across cultures attain a sense of irreversible achievement in childbirth. Men on the other hand,
focus on the role of provider, builder, and protector to attain a sense of achievement.
Williams and Best (1982) found evidence from their thirty country study for the existence
of traits ascribed to men and women. This cross-cultural gender trait theory corresponds with
the evolutionary psychology view with its biological roots. ***??*** Adaptations occur when
solutions evolve in response to reproductive and survival tasks. The dominance/submission
traits, which are prominent in the psychology of gender, may have their roots in biology.
According to Buss (1991), gender differences in agency and communion (e.g. mens greater
levels of physical aggressiveness; womens greater levels of empathy) may stem from the
distinct reproductive problems that men and women have faced in ancestral environmentsproblems of gaining access to mates through intrasexual competition and problems of elevated
parental investment in children. (p.467)
In Manhood in the Making, David Gilmore (1990) sought to investigate the existence of a
global ideal of masculinity. After discussing many cultures, Gilmore concludes that manhood
generally involves pressures to be the protector, provider and father. Additionally, there is often
some form of masculinity test required to achieve manhood. Examples of such tests include
hazing as is seen in the U. S. Marines, hunting tasks among the Kung Bushmen of southwest
Africa, and elaborate and painful rituals among the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. Similar

12

masculine roles were identified around the world: in Mediterranean countries such as Spain,
Turkey, Morocco, and Greece; in the South Pacific island of Truk; in the remote Mehinaku
Indians of Brazil; and in the East and South Asian countries of Japan, China, and India.
However, Gilmore also found two examples of societies, the Tahitians of French
Polynesia and the Semai of Malaysia, which do not have the usual notions of masculinity. In
Tahiti women were chiefs, participated in sports with men, and at times dominated their
husbands. There were no cultural gender rules related to jobs and skills. Men cooked often and
showed affection freely to other males. Grammatically, gender among them is not expressed in
pronouns, because this distinction in describing people is not considered important. Gilmore
(1990, p.201) suggests, that cultural variables may outweigh nature in the masculinity puzzle.
Mead (1935) in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, attempted to show
the influence of culture on gender roles in describing societies in which sex roles are extremely
different from those typical in Western civilizations. For example, two New Guinea tribes, the
Iatmul and Tchambuli, are located in close proximity to each other yet, they demonstrate very
different gender roles. The Iatmul have the typical pattern of male aggressiveness and female
nurturance. In stark contract, the Tchambuli exhibit a pattern of female initiative in community
matters, while the males are more submissive and focus on theater and art.
Socialization theories concentrate on scripts or socializing scenes performed by the
parents and other societal members in which the acceptable societal norms are transmitted and
reinforced to children (Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). One extensive, cross-cultural study by Low
(1989) investigated socialization in relation to personality across 93 cultures. Support was found
across cultures for the training of boys to show higher levels of fortitude, aggression, and selfreliance than girls. Girls, on the other hand, were trained to be more responsible, obedient, and

13

restrained than boys. This study supports a general pattern of uniformity in gender roles crossculturally. Because of the ubiquitous nature of similar general roles across cultures, arguments
could be made for the biological roots of masculinity. On the other hand, this study among
others also demonstrates the important role of culture in introducing and reinforcing scripts
which teach children appropriate gender roles.
Therefore, it appears that the universal perspectives of gender roles described in this
section do not present an accurate picture of masculinity effects, or machismo, on social issues
such as gender discrimination. The cultural perspectives of gender roles focus on the unique
value systems within cultures which emphasize the correctness of particular ways of acting.
This perspective seems more valuable in explaining gender differences, and specifically
machismo. Given this conclusion, we now turn to Hofstedes (1980) cultural value dimensions in
an effort to investigate the origins of machismo and its potential effects.

THE EFFECTS OF CULTURAL VARIABLES ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Hofstedes (1980) seminal work has been widely cited in explaining behaviors across
cultures. Data were obtained from subsidiaries of a large multinational corporation in 40
countries. Over 116,000 questionnaires were collected from 1967 to 1971 from employees
ranging in job level from unskilled workers to research scientists. Hofstede proposed the
following four value dimensions: masculinity-femininity; power distance; uncertainty avoidance,
and individualism-collectivism.
Caution should be exercised when using Hofstedes value dimensions. Because
subgroups or subcultures exist in all countries, some generalizations are false; such as all people
in a high-uncertainty avoidance culture will avoid uncertainty. If care is not taken, individuals

14

may be falsely stereotyped just because of national citizenship. However, Hofstede claims that
with most countries, there are still some distinguishing values which most inhabitants share;
especially the average middle-class citizen.

Masculinity - Femininity
Cultures high in masculinity place an emphasis on material gain and assertiveness, while
countries high in femininity emphasize relationships, concern for others, and quality of life. In
masculine societies, sex roles are clearly distinguished with the ideal male behaving assertively
and the ideal female behaving in a nurturing manner. High masculinity cultures are also known
for having a stronger father figure in the family, while the position of the mother figure is
supportive. Mexico and the United States are examples of countries which rated high on
masculine values. Scandinavian countries like Norway tend to be the more feminine and
emphasize quality of work life in their factories. Interestingly, there seems to be more role
freedom in feminine cultures. For example, in the Netherlands, it is acceptable for men to stay
home with the children while women work.
Hofstede (1980) stated, The one concept from the anthropological literature which can
be directly associated with masculinity is machismo which is usually attributed to Latin
American countries, especially Mexico (p.289). Masculinity seems to be associated with
latitude. Countries with warmer climates, such as those of the Caribbean and the Mediterranean,
tend to have very masculine cultures. Perhaps this is because masculinity is more easily
maintained in warmer climate in which survival and population growth are less dependent on
mans intervention with nature (Hofstede, 1980; p.295). Hofstede suggests a greater
dependency on technology for survival in more moderate climates. This necessitates a minimum

15

level of education and equality among the sexes. A certain level of complex skills is needed by
both men and women for survival in a cooler climate, which leads to more flexible gender roles.
Hofstedes (1980) generated scores that indicate degrees of masculinity with Mexico,
Venezuela, and Colombia scoring high on masculinity. Argentina and Brazil score in the middle
range on masculinity, while Peru and Chile are more feminine. The U.S. is higher than
Argentina and Brazil on masculinity, but somewhat lower than Mexico, Venezuela, and
Colombia. Table 1 summarizes the masculinity scores of selected countries examined in
Hofstedes research. This provides empirical support for the contention that Mexico is
somewhat more masculine than the U. S., but it also demonstrates that the U. S. is also a highly
masculine culture. However, the relatively small difference in masculinity scores for the Mexico
and U. S. with 69 and 62 respectively, indicate that other value dimensions may play a role in the
exaggerated machismo that linked to Mexico.

---------------------------------Insert TABLE 1 about here

----------------------------------

The earlier arguments advanced in support of the gender role expectations between men
and women in masculine versus feminine cultures suggest that societal expectations for
womens roles in organizations would be substantially different from those occupied by men.
We conclude that gender-based discrimination will occur more frequently in cultures that are
high in masculinity and low in femininity. Therefore, since Mexicos culture is more masculine

16

than American culture, we expect there to be more Gender-based discrimination in Mexico.

Based on these expected differences, we offer the following proposition.

P1:

Gender-based discrimination will occur more frequently in Mexico than in

the U.S due to higher masculinity in Mexican culture.

Power Distance
Power distance represents how a culture deals with inequalities among people. People in
high power distance societies have the belief that everyone has his or her rightful place in the
world. They are not in close contact with people above their level in society. Cultures with high
power distances accept large differences in power and wealth. Titles and status are highly valued
in high power distance societies. In these cultures, the powerful are entitled to privileges and it
is normal for people with power to display it. In these cultures, there is often latent conflict
between the powerful and the powerless as well as superiors and subordinates. Overall,
individuals in these cultures expect and accept inequality.
On the other hand, individuals in low power distance countries share the belief that
societal inequities should be minimized. Cultures with low power distances do not accept large
differences in power and wealth, and engage in efforts to minimize inequalities. This does not
mean that inequality does not exist in low power distance societies, it only means that inequality
is less tolerated. Low power distance countries include the U. S. and Sweden, while high power
distance countries include Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Spain. See Table 2 for power
distance scores of selected countries.

17

---------------------------------Insert TABLE 2 about here

----------------------------------

Power distance may enhance the effects of masculinity on gender-based discrimination.

High power distance could interact with high masculinity to exacerbate exploitative machismo
attitudes. Kelly (1984) proposed that class differentials, which are related to power distance,
play a role in machismo. He wrote that To men oppressed by the organization of labor and
misdistribution of social wealth and power in society after society, the dual order of patriarchal
society provide in manyinstances the satisfaction of dominion over women (Kelly, 1984; p.
61). Pena (1991) also wrote about the displacement of class conflict through degrading the
women in Mexican folklore.
Socioeconomic level may play a role in this situation. Pena (1991) in interviewing
Mexican working-class men found that according to one worker, that charrita coloardas
(colored jokes), which often target women, are an effort to make light of things for a moment,
to forget the problems of life for a moment -the toil, the struggle (p.43). Ramos (1962) and
Pena (1991) have suggested that more blatant machismo such as vulgar language and
degradation of women is more common among working-class men than it is amount men in
higher levels of society. However, this relationship of lower classes to machismo should be
viewed with caution, because some cultures have demonstrated the opposite relationship.
Based on the literature reviewed so far, we conclude that the power distance moderates
the gender-based discrimination effect of masculinity. More specifically, greater power distance

18

exacerbates the effect of masculinity on gender-based discrimination, such that countries highest
in power distance and masculinity will experience the greatest gender-based discrimination.
Given this conclusion, the following proposition is suggested:

P2:

power distance will moderate (intensifying) the effect of masculinity on

gender-based discrimination. Gender-based discrimination will be more common and

problematic in Mexico than in the U.S. due to the higher level of power distance in
Mexican culture

Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance describes the degree to which ambiguous situations are perceived
as threatening to people and the degree to which they try to avoid these situations. Uncertainty
avoidance strategies include ensuring more career stability, instituting formal rules, rejecting
deviant ideas and behavior, and believing in the absolute truths. There is usually more resistance
to change in high uncertainty avoidance countries. This resistance to change may be related to
the continuance of exploitative machismo attitudes in Mexico and elsewhere. High uncertainty
avoidance countries include Mexico, Spain and Japan.
In countries that are categorized as having a higher tolerance for uncertainty, people are
more comfortable with ambiguous situations. Change is not resisted as much as in high
uncertainty avoidance cultures. Low uncertainty avoidance countries include the U.S. and India.
With regard to gender-based discrimination, the resistance to change associated with
strong uncertainty avoidance may cause programs with stipulations against gender-based
discrimination, such as NAFTA, to be implemented more slowly than in cultures which are less

19

risk averse. For example, though much still remains to be done in the United States (a low
uncertainty avoidance culture), companies have gone far toward implementing programs and
practices aimed at eliminating gender-based discrimination. Moreover, this may also partly
explain the lag in adoption of such policies by many Japanese companies (high uncertainty
avoidance culture). We expect to see a find pattern in Mexico. Additionally, masculinity will
have a moderating effect on the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and the
implementation speed of gender-based discrimination programs. A country such as Mexico,
which is high in masculinity, will be slower to implement programs directed at reducing or
eliminating gender-based discrimination .As a result, the following propositions are suggested:

P3:

Companies in Mexico will be slower to implement programs directed at

reducing or eliminating gender-based discrimination than companies in the U.S. because

of the higher uncertainty avoidance in Mexico.

P4:

Companies in Mexico will be slower than American firms in

implementing programs directed at reducing or eliminating gender-based discrimination

due to the moderating effect of masculinity on the relationship between uncertainty
avoidance and the implementation speed of gender-based discrimination programs.

Individualism - Collectivism
People in individualistic cultures are more concerned with themselves or their immediate
families (husband, wife, children). In individualist cultures, emotional independence of the

20

individual from institutions is emphasized. An example of a country which rated high on

individualism is the United States
People in collectivist societies are more concerned with their entire in-group, extended
family or organization. Collectivist societies emphasize conformity and belonging to
institutions. Collectivist countries always show large power distances, even though individualist
countries do not always have small power distances (Hofstede, 1983). Family support, harmony
and protection of members are values prevalent in collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 1980).
Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, & Betancourt (1984) seem to support this position. Examples of
countries which rated low on individualism are Mexico and Japan.
This dimension may play a role in the machismo socialization process. In a collectivist
culture, there is more emphasis on molding the child to an ideal versus appreciating the
uniqueness of the child. Fitting in and learning the appropriate gender roles may be emphasized
more in a collectivist culture such as Mexico than in an individualistic culture such as the U. S.
In addition, the need for an appropriate reputation, respect, and acceptance among male peers
may be more important in Mexico.
Consistent with the arguments advanced for the power distance dimension, it is expected
that gender-based discrimination will be more commonly accepted in highly collectivist cultures,
where the existing in-group is a strong force that is difficult to change. As a result, the
implementation of programs directed at reducing or eliminating gender-based discrimination are
also anticipated to be slower in this environment. Furthermore, masculinity will moderate the
relationship between collectivism and implementation speed of gender-based discrimination,
such that cultures highest in masculinity and collectivism will be the slowest to implement

21

programs directed at gender-based discrimination. Based on these conclusions, he following

proposition are suggested:

P5:

Companies in Mexico will be slower, than companies in the U.S., to

implement programs directed at reducing or eliminating gender-based discrimination due

to the higher collectivism in Mexican culture.

P6:

Companies in Mexico will be slower than American firms in

implementing programs directed at reducing or eliminating gender-based discrimination

due to the moderating effect of masculinity on the relationship between collectivism and
the implementation speed of gender-based discrimination programs.

DISCUSSION
The construct of machismo appears to be related to sexist attitudes associated with
gender-based discrimination. However, as demonstrated by the review of the literature on the
universal perspective described this paper, inadequate evidence exists to consider these
outcomes simply as a result of biological or evolutionary forces. Instead, the very strong effects
of cultural values are paramount in defining societal expectations about gender roles both inside
and outside of the workplace.
The implications of these propositions are important for U.S. companies expanding into
Mexico. As companies attempt to discourage gender-based discrimination within the workplace,
they will need to be sensitive to the dominant cultural values of the respective regions within
which they operate. Moreover, planning for program implementation and expectations about the

22

results of programs directed at decreasing or eliminating gender-based discrimination must be

based upon the respective cultures stance on these value dimensions. Finally, important
implications exist for expatriate or transpatriate female managers assigned to Mexico. It is
critical for them to realize, and for their companies to prepare them to adapt to the differing
societal expectations about womens roles within the location they will be serving so that they
are able to both interact effectively within the workplace and exist safely and comfortably in the
society. We have attempted to further expand the dialogue on the relationships between the
construct of machismo and gender-based discrimination. It is hoped that future researchers will
seek to develop an even fuller understandings about these complex relationships.

23

REFERENCES

Andrade, R. A. 1992. Machismo: A universal malady. Journal of American Culture, 15(4): 3341.
Anker, R. 1997. Theories of occupational segregation by sex: An overview. International
Labour Review, 136 (3): 315-339.
Bilmes, M. 1992. Macho and shame. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1(3,4): 163-168.
Brouthers, L. E., McCray, J. P., & Wilkinson, T. J. 1999. Maquiladoras: Entrepreneurial
experimentation to global competitiveness. Business Horizons, 42(2): 37-44.
Celestino, M. L. 1999. Manufacturing in Mexico. World Trade, 12(7): 36-42.
Chemers, M. M. & Ayman, R. 1985. Leadership orientation as a moderator of the relationship between
job performance and job satisfaction of Mexican managers. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 11(4): 359-367.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. 1979. The development of coping style. Human Development, 22, 320-331.
Dorfman, P. W. & Howell, J. P. 1997. Managerial leadership in the United States and Mexico: Distant
neighbors or close cousins? In C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross Cultural Workgroups
(pp. 234-264). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K, Tate, U., & Bautista, A. 1997. Leadership in
western and Asian countries: Commonalties and differences in effective leadership
processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3): 233-274.
Fullerton, T. M., & Schauer, D. A. 2001. Short-run maquiladora employment dynamics. International
Advances in Economic Research, 7(4): 471-478.

24

Gilmore, D. D. 1990. Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Goldwert, M. 1983. Machismo and conquest: The case of Mexico. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values.
SAGE Publications.
Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14(2): 75-89.
House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R.N. 1997. Cross-cultural research on organizational
leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.),
New perspectives in international industrial organizational psychology (pp. 535-625).
New Lexington: San Francisco.
Human Rights Watch, 1996. Mexico's Maquiladoras: Abuses Against Women Workers. New
York: Human Rights Watch.
Ingelehart, R., & Caraballo, M. 1997. Does Latin America exist? (And is there a Confucian culture?): A
global analysis of cross-cultural differences. Political Science and Politics, 30(1): 34-46.
Kras, E. 1994. Modernizing Mexican management style. Las Cruces, NM: Editts.
Larwood, L. 1991. Start with a rational group of people: Gender effects of impression
management in organizations. Applied Impression Management: How image-making
affects managerial decisions, Newbury Park, California: SAGE publications.
Lindquist, D. 2001. Rules change for maquiladoras. Industry Week, 250(1): 23-26.
Low, B. S. 1989. Cross-cultural patterns in the training of children: an evolutionary perspective.
Journal of Comp. Psychology. 103:311-319.

25

Mayo, Y., & Resnick, R. 1996. The impact of machismo on Hispanic women. Journal of
Women & Social Work, 11(3): 257.
Mead, M. 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive societies. New York: New
American Library.
Mead, M. 1962. Male and female: A study of the sexes in a changing world. Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin.
Miller, J. S., Hom, P. W., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2001. The high cost of low wages: Does maquiladora
compensation reduce turnover? Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 585-595.
Mirande, A. 1986. Que gaucho ser macho: Its a drag to be a macho man. Aztlan: A Journal of
Chicano Studies, 17(2), 63-89.
Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. S. 1988. Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization
and enculturation. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1): 60-84.
Muller, H. J., & Rowell, R. 1997. Mexican women managers: An emerging profile. Human
Resource Management, 36(4): 423-435.
Oster, P. 1989. The Mexicans: A personal portrait of a people. New York: Harper & Row.
Paik, Y., & Sohn, J. H. D. (1998). Confucius in Mexico: Korean MNCs. and the maquiladoras. Business
Horizons, 41(6): 25-33.
Pena, M. Class, gender, and machismo: The treacherous-woman folklore of Mexican male
workers, Gender & Society, 5(1): 30-46.
Ramos, S. 1962. Profile of man and culture in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Riding, A. 1985. Distant neighbors. New York: Vintage Books.
Robertson, R., & Dutkowsky, D. H. 2002. Labor adjustment costs in a destination country: the case of
Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 67: 29-54.

26

Rossi, A. M., & Todd-Mancillas, Wm. R. 1987. Machismo as a factor affecting the use of
power and communication in the managing of personnel disputes: Brazilian versus
American male managers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1): 93-104.
Sargent, J., & Matthews, L. 2001. Combining export processing zones and regional free trade
agreements: Lessons from the Mexican experience. World Development, 29(10): 1739-1752.
Solis, L. E., Raghu-Nathan, T. S., & Rao, S.S. 2000. A regional study of quality management
infrastructure practices in USA and Mexico. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 17(6): 597-613.
Stephens, G., & Greer, C. 1995. Doing business in Mexico: Understanding cultural differences.
Organizational Dynamics, 24(1).
Strong, W. F. Fall 1993- Winter 1994. En el laberinto de machismo: A comparative analysis of
macho attitudes among Hispanic and Anglo college students. The Howard Journal of
Communications, 5(1,2):: 18-35.
Thomkins, S. S. 1979. Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E> Howe, Jr.,
& R. Dienstbiener (Eds.), 1978 Nebraska symposium on motivation, pp. 201-236.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. 1984. Simpatia as a cultural script of
Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1363-1375.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D.L. 1982. Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Beverly
Hills: SAGE Publications.
Wolf, E. R., & Hansen, E. C. 1972. The human condition in Latin America. New York: Oxford
University Press.

27

TABLE 1
Masculinity Index
Japan
Austria
Venezuela
Italy
Switzerland
Mexico
Ireland
Great Britain
Germany
Philippines
Colombia
South Africa
U.S.A
Australia
New Zealand
Greece
Hong Kong
Argentina
India
Belgium

95
79
73
70
70
69
68
66
66
64
64
63
62
61
58
57
57
56
56
54

Canada
Pakistan
Brazil
Singapore
Israel
Turkey
Taiwan
Iran
France
Spain
Peru
Thailand
Portugal
Chile
Finland
Denmark
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden

*Taken from Hofstede (1980)

28

52
50
49
48
47
45
45
43
43
42
42
34
31
28
26
16
14
8
5

TABLE 2
Power Distance Index
Philippines
Mexico
Venezuela
India
Brazil
Colombia
Peru
Chile
Spain
Italy
Argentina
U.S.A.
Netherlands
Israel

94
81
81
77
69
67
64
63
57
50
49
40
38
13

*Taken from Hofstede (1980)

29