Cultural Dimensions by Greet Hofstede - Essay Example

? Critically analyze Hofstede’s ‘Cultural Dimensions’? What correlation does Hofstede make among groups of countries and how valid are they for you? [Name] [Course Title] [University] [Instructor’s Name] [Date] Critically analyze Hofstede’s ‘Cultural Dimensions’? What correlation does Hofstede make among groups of countries and how valid are they for you? The most important factor influencing an organization’s value system is its culture. In 1980, Professor Greet Hofstede published his book ‘Culture’s Consequences’ after rigorous research and deep analysis of how values are inclined by the culture. He was the originator of relative intercultural research. His publication which proved to be a land mark in defining organizational cultural aspects was ‘Cultures and Organization: Software of the Mind’ (1991). He is renowned for his contribution in developing the earliest experiential replica ‘dimensions of national culture’. In this model he established a pattern for explaining the different elements pertaining to culture of global economics, collaboration and communication with reference to multinational company IBM. This model later gave rise to the development of a model for explaining the organizational cultures. Due to his extensive contribution in the field of intercultural research he is regarded as the foremost representative of cultural studies. His research work is now use as a study tool in different subjects including management sciences and psychological studies (Greet Hofstede, 2012). The cultural theory of Hofstede deeply describes the impact of culture on the inhabitants of a society. Initially he used the factor analysis to develop a model which correlates the values and behavior. At first the theory projected four aspects of culture through which values could be examined. The original model contained individualism v/s collectivism, masculinity (the impact of gender over the cultural values), power distance (distribution of power and the vigor of social hierarchy) and uncertainty avoidance. Later Hofstede included one more aspect to his model, the long-term orientation. The 2010 edition of his famous book ‘Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind’ has an addition of another aspect, indulgence v/s self restraint. Later additions to the original model have enabled to differentiate between evaluation of individual and country level statistics (Hofstede, Geert et al., 2010). The Hofstede’s work on cultural dimensions has stimulated the research in social beliefs. In order to develop his theory Hofstede examined the 116,000 of IBM with varying backgrounds and lifestyles. They all represented 66 different nations of three regions of the world. Research was based on questionnaires and it was undertaken somewhere between 1968 and 1972. After recognizing the five different dimensions of culture Hofstede categorized them as being generalize able for every society or region of the world. As almost all the society have the same cultural issues and aspects. To further analyze the dimensions he developed an index to plot to the countries under consideration as per their scores (Sven Rosenhauer, 2009). The brief description of the model is as follows (Martin Sebastian Scheuplein, 2010): Power Distance It describes the value or ‘power’ that an individual or society possess with respect to others. It is explained in the form of hierarchy that reflects the ‘distance’ of authority between different groups. Low power distance refers to minimum level of inequality among the members of society and high power distance reflects the other point of view. Individualism v/s Collectivism Individualism maintains distance from subordinates in the organization and focus more on the achievement of personal goals whereas collectivism encourages the cooperative efforts in order to achieve goals and objectives. Individualism is based on the ‘I’ approach that working alone is better than belonging to a group. Masculinity/Femininity There is an obvious difference between the two genders. They both have different approaches towards expression, emotional control, achievement orientation, quality of life, importance of relationships and marital success. It emphasizes on the point of view that people generally focus more on the performance and the ultimate results rather than maintaining relationships. Uncertainty Avoidance The need for clearly defined rules and regulations in relation to job so that possible uncertainties and problems arising during the course of action can be avoid. People with lower level of uncertainty avoidance are generally more resistant towards taking risk whereas people with high uncertainty avoidance take situations as they are. Long-term Orientation It focuses on the achievement of future goals and objectives they might be the organizational goals or the personal aims. Here the traditions prevailing in the society are given importance in addition to social obligations. This revolves around the pragmatic approach of life. In his research work he built an argument that the culture is actually learned through the prevailing set of values of a particular society. Man unconsciously develop the understanding of his societal values and began to make them a part of his personal attributes. On the basis of the argument he concluded that the ‘programming of the mind’ is the real force that directs an individual’s dealings and thinking. Hofstede maintains a distinctive position when it comes to cross cultural research due to his authentic quantitative research and analysis (Sven Rosenhauer, 2009). His contribution has a substantial impact over the previously perceived cultural and value system. Additionally it is a bench mark in studying the managerial behaviors. In the corporate world it is very important to build strong cross-culture management skills in order to advance in the career and also to maintain harmony in the organizational environment. The foremost step in this regard is to develop a sense of differentiation between one’s own culture and the culture of others. Hofstede convinced people that projecting the same domestic values would not help in dealing with cross-cultural differences. Therefore individuals and organizations should make arrangement for the training of employees in relation to multicultural communication skills, building awareness about the top most cultures of the world and subsequently gaining cultural intelligence (Kristin Piepenburg, 2011). Despite of the fact that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are highly applicable to any society and region in the current scenario it requires certain reexamination. Since the communication network around the globe has become so strong that it is influencing individual’s cultural perceptions and ways of conduct therefore future researches are required to reanalyze Hofstede’s cultural dimension with respect to global communication (Kalyani Rangarajan et al., 2010). Two dimensions of Hofstede’s model are valid for me including individualism and long-term orientation. Individualism focuses on the human free and freedom with the addition of self reliance (Oliver Moller et al., 2010). As I prefer to do task all alone as compared to being a group member. This is basically due to the social loafing aspect of group performance and on the other hand I believe on making long term goals and future planning as it helps in motivation and consistent hard work. References Geert Hofstede, 2012. Greet Hofstede. The Hofstede Centre. < http://geert-hofstede.com/geert-hofstede.html> Hofstede, Geert, Geert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov, 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kalyani Rangarajan, Srungarapu Hanuman Kennedy, Murali Murti, 2010. Management Megatrends: Impact of culture on values, behavior and organizational issues. Allied Publishers; page 37. Kristin Piepenburg, 2011. Critical Analysis of Hofstede's Model of Cultural Dimensions: To what Extent are His Findings Reliable, Valid and Applicable to Organizations in the 21st Century?: Hofstede’s findings in practice. GRIN Verlag; page 41. Martin Sebastian Scheuplein, 2010. Valuing and incorporating cultural differences in Multicultural groups: An example of working with Indian cultural counterparts: Hofstede’s representation of cultures through cultural dimensions. GRIN Verlag; page 50-51. Oliver Moller, Pascal Naue, 2010. Critical Reflection of the U.S. Subprime-crisis' Origin by Using Hofstede ?s Theory of Cultural Dimensions: Individualism. GRIN Verlag; page 7. Sven Rosenhauer, 2009. Cross-Cultural Business Communication: Intercultural Competence as a Universal Interculture: Hofstede. GRIN Verlag; page 20. Read More