Hofstedes Framework of Cultural Differences and Chinese Values - Case Study Example

Hofstede’s Framework of Cultural Differences and Chinese Values Name: Institution: 2nd October, 2013 Hofstede’s Framework of Cultural Differences and Chinese Values Introduction Individuals in the society are aware that they are living in a global era. The use of technology has brought people closer together. This demonstrates that individuals with different cultural backgrounds find themselves in the same working environment and communicating more often. This is an exciting ideology however, it can be fraught and wearisome if associated with a lot of uncertainty. How would an individual relate with someone from a different culture? While starting a conversation, what is acceptable to say or not say? Are there taboos in someone’s culture that each party needs to be aware of? These are some of the difficult questions that need to be answered and as such, the need to build connection with personalities from all over the world is just but one way of cultural diversity. Motivating individuals, developing strategies together, and structuring projects need oto be integrated in the system. Thus, to understand cultural differences, a close consideration is given to Dr. Geert Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural differences and applied to the context of Chinese values survey to understand the way management and leadership in institutions is impacted by differences that are probable to exist between organisational employees in Individualism or Collectivism and Long Term or Short Term orientation. Dr. Geert Hofstede’s Five Dimensions of Culture Equipped with large databases of statistics related to culture, Hofstede did an analysis of the outcomes and identified clear patterns of similarity and variations (differences) in the course of responses in regard to these five dimensions. Fascinatingly, Hofstede did his research on IBM employees only, which gave him the opportunity to attribute the patterns identified to national differences in culture, largely doing away with the issue of differences in culture between companies. The five dimensions that Hofstede identified are Power Distance (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) and Long Term Orientation (LTO) (Ji 2013). If the Chinese culture is explored through this 5-Dimensional Model, it is possible to get a good impression of the deep drivers of culture in China comparative to other global cultures. Dr. Geert Hofstede’s Chinese Cultural Survey Results Source: Ji, K 2013, Managing Cultural Differences, lecture notes distributed in Understanding Business BUSS 1001 at The University of Sydney, Darlington NSW on 12 September 2013. Power Distance makes reference to the degree of inequality that is existent, and is accepted, among individuals in possession of and without power (Ji 2013). It considers the actuality that all personalities in societies are not equal therefore, expresses the attitude of the culture towards the inequalities that exist amongst employees. In other words, it can be expressed as the degree to which individuals who are less powerful in organisations within a given country accept and anticipate that the distribution of power is unequal. China has a high Power Distance Index (PDI) of 80 as illustrated in Hofstede’s survey, which qualifies it to be amongst the hire rankings of this dimension (Ji 2013). This means that China is a society in which employees in organisations believe that inequality amongst them are acceptable. The relationship between superior managers and their subordinates in Chinese organisations is polarized and there seems to be no defence against abuse of power by managing superiors (Cheng et al. 2013). Actions taken by employees are influenced by formal authorities and sanctions and in a general sense are optimistic about individuals’ ability for leadership and innovativeness. Most employees in Chinese firms have no aspirations that go beyond their rank because they acknowledge the power of their leaders and are aware that answers and reports are obtained from and given to the top management members respectively (Hofstede 2012). As such, Chinese companies are centralized in nature, are highly hierarchical, and have large gaps in regard to respect, compensation and authority. Individualism (IDV) makes reference to the ties individuals have to others within the society. In other words, individualism refers to the extent or degree of interdependence a given community maintains among all its members (Ji 2013). It defines the degree to which people are integrated into community groups or not. A high IDV score is an illustration that loose connections exist in a society, thus individual images are defined in terms of “I”. Such societies have successful individuals looking after their own self and direct members of their family only das (Neves & Melé 2013). Contrarily, low IDV scores illustrate a collectivist society where people’s self-image is defined as “We”, hence people live and belong in groups that take care of them and their interests in exchange for allegiance (Moran, Harris & Moran 2012). There are strong group cohesions in societies that have low IDV scores making them have strong group cohesions, great allegiance, and respect for members of the groups they belong to. Such groups are always larger and individuals take more dependability for the wellbeing of each other (Minkov & Hofstede 2012). China has a score of 20, which means that Chinese employees have a highly collectivist culture where they work in the interests of the groups in which they belong and not essentially for themselves (Ji 2013). Chinese management and leadership styles are characterised by respect towards age and wisdom, harmony in project based teams, working for essential rewards, and stress laid on team building skills and innovativeness. Most employees in low IDV score societies such as China suppress their feelings and emotions to avoid personality conflicts and work harmoniously (das Neves & Melé 2013) Masculinity (MAS) (or Femininity) is a dimension that refers not so much to gender related roles as to the extent of emphasis in a culture on assertiveness, success and achievement or inclusiveness, caring and modesty (Ji 2013). The former description is known to reflect values that are associated with males while the latter illustrates feminine values. A high score on this dimension makes reference to the fact that the community in question would be driven by success, competition and achievement, of which success in this context is defined by the winner or the best employee in a certain field within organisations (Tieu & Guo 2011). Obstinately, a low MAS score illustrates a feminine society and caring for others in an organisation and quality of life is the symbol of success. In such communities, being conspicuous from the crowd is not an admirable feature (Taras, Kirkman & Steel, 2010). With a score of 66 in this dimension, China is a masculine society, meaning that employees in organisations are success motivated and oriented (Ji 2013). The desire to guarantee success can be demonstrated by the actuality that many Chinese citizens will sacrifice their family and leisure time to work (ten Thije & Maier 2012). In addition, organisational administrators work very late into the night and most employees would leave their families in distant places in order to obtain “greener pastures” or better work and wages in the country’s city (Pham & Hongyu 2012). Most managers are therefore male since the society believes that greater success will be achieved through them, male and female roles are distinct in organisations, and men do not make emotional decisions or argue emotionally while running projects in teams. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) defines a community’s tolerance for improbability and indistinctness or ambiguity (Ji 2013). In other terms, it describes the level of uncertainty that the members of a society feel in the event that they find themselves in situations that are unknown or uncertain. Important to note is that defines the way in which a community handles the actuality that their future can never be known. They are best described to be in a state of quandary in regard to whether to control their future or let events unfold as they are. They feel threatened with what is ahead of them and as such, this kind of ambiguity is associated with a lot of anxiety, which various societies have learnt to handle in different ways. At a UAI score of 30, China has a low score and therefore adheres to laws and rules that are flexible to suit situations and practicality in organisations is a fact that they live with (Ji 2013). Perhaps, there are few rules, and individuals are encouraged to establish what to take as the truth. Inherently, Chinese employees are comfortable with uncertainty and have managers, in addition to leaders, that are naturally adaptable and entrepreneurial. As a result, most of their businesses are small or medium sized and owned by families. At work, they have informal business attitudes and their administrators or leaders do not impose structure (organisation) and rules unnecessarily. Long Term Orientation (LTO), or short-term orientation, is a dimension that deals with the subject of desirable quality (Ji 2013). It therefore defines a community’s search for quality of life or a practical future-based view rather than a normal traditional short-term perspective. The society values long standing traditions and values, as such most employees deliver social obligations and significantly avoid organisational image loss. China has a score of 118 in this dimension meaning that it is a long term oriented society in which values of perseverance and persistence are considered normal (Ji 2013). Most Chinese organisations, managers and leaders are involved in long-term investment projects such as real estate (Pham & Hongyu 2012). As such, leaders do not display extravagance in their expenditures, have strong work ethics, value education and training of employees and reward perseverance, commitment and loyalty to organisations. Conclusion From the analysis, it is deducible that the Chinese culture displays high value for collectivism and long-term orientations. Consequently, managers and leaders in organisations prefer creating task workforces or teams while undertaking projects that are considered long term. Team building skills and cautious expenditures are characteristic identities of organisations that are found in China. These two dimensions, collectivism and Long Term Orientation, amongst five dimensions are the main features that are displayed by Chinese managers and leaders as they have the highest scores. China is thus a highly collectivist and future oriented culture. References Ji, K 2013, Managing Cultural Differences, lecture notes distributed in Understanding Business BUSS 1001 at The University of Sydney, Darlington NSW on 12 September 2013. Pham, B & Hongyu, X 2012, Managing cultural differences in MNE: a case study on IKEA in China and their staffs (Doctoral dissertation, Mälardalen University). Tieu, M P & Guo, B L 2011, Managing cultural differences in business relationships: a dynamic interpretation of cross-cultural business relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Kristianstad University). ten Thije, J D & Maier, R 2012, “Managing cultural and linguistic diversity in multiple organisational settings: editorial”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 629-641. das Neves, J C & Melé, D 2013, “Managing ethically cultural diversity: learning from Thomas Aquina”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-12. Cheng, C Y, Chua, R Y, Morris, M W & Lee, L 2012, “Finding the right mix: How the composition of self‐managing multicultural teams' cultural value orientation influences performance over time”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 389-411. Taras, V, Kirkman, B L & Steel, P 2010, “Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 95, no. 3, p. 405. Hofstede, G 2012, “Geert Hofstede ”, líner Dirección URL: http://geert-hofstede.com/geerthofstede.html. Moran, R T, Harris, P R & Moran, S 2012, Managing cultural differences, London: Routledge. Minkov, M & Hofstede, G 2012, “Hofstede’s fifth dimension new evidence from the world values survey”, Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1, pp. 3-14. Read More