Strengths and Weakness for Culture Theories - Assignment Example

Introduction A comparative analysis has been made in this of the three cultural theories ly Hofstede’s cultural dimension, Swartz’s cultural values and Thompenaar’s culture theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these theories have been discussed in detail and a comparative analysis has been made. It has been found that although Swartz’s theory and Thompenaar’s theories have some weight, it is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions that can actually be implemented in the human resource. This is because Hofstede’s cultural dimension covers larger aspects of cultural assessments and is more holistic in nature. Though it has its own weaknesses nevertheless its strengths overpower them and is thus a better tool for cultural analysis both at an individual and a cultural level. in today’s business world it holds a lot of importance as many businesses depend on long term business relations across the globe. Geert Hofstede Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory is based on how the culture of a society or a workplace influences an individual’s culture in the same society or organization. Though it is widely used and quoted, however, it is also criticized by several researchers. His theory has four main parts. Power distance is when the framework assesses how much of a difference there is of power between the different individuals and how well the power is distributed within an organization. Individualism versus collectivism is when the theory assesses the power one individual has in terms of conducting business or taking decisions or whether he is dependent upon his team mates for decision making or making changes. Uncertainty avoidance index is when the society is scrutinized and evaluated for how well it can tolerate ambiguity and how it can help lessen it. Lastly masculinity versus femininity is when the emotional roles are assessed within a society or a culture. This evaluates whether the whole society adapts a more masculine or feminine role and it may be applicable on an individual’s evaluation. Thus Hofstede’s cultural dimension is all rounded and is a good analytical tool for individual and societal assessment of culture. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), Hofstede has invented a theory through which a comparison can be made between employees on the basis of culture. Through this method, researchers can now evaluate the viability of conducting business between two culturally different firms belonging to different countries. He has given five basic categories under which this comparison can be made. Through an individual’s character is very complicated and can vary with changing circumstances, but Hofstede has been able devise a theory through which such cultural comparison can be made and thus it greatly facilitates conducting businesses in different societies. Moreover, Lu CS, Lai KH, Lun YH, Cheng TC. (2012, p. 916-927) add that how well employees will be able to work in conjunction with each other is of importance, which can be assessed through the help of this framework. It enables one to get cultural insight of the partner firm and also an employee if he has come from another culture. Knowing the cultural traits is very essential to strike a workable and congenial relationship for future business growth. Thesis of immense importance in today’s times where global businesses are rapidly developing and expansion is taking place in every part of the world. Western firms are entering the eastern markets and thus knowing the work culture and national culture is extremely important if they want to have healthy long run relations. Important business negotiations may fail if such cultural knowledge is absent. Moreover, Piepenburg (2011) adds that if there is substantial differences in the culture a firm may decide not to venture into a particular country as there may be a lot of work differences and may foster bad cultural work environment which may produce negative results for the firm. Thus such a framework places the businesses in a more competent position for their employees. Today international communication is very important for every business. Thus to do that, one needs to understand and have an idea about other cultures. This is because what may be acceptable in one culture, it may not be so in another culture. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), both verbal and non-verbal cues like clothing, body language and cultural ethics etc are equally important to understanding one’s culture and dealing with the prospective business partner or employee. Global negotiations are very important in today’s times. The framework helps individuals understand the culture at a level where business negotiations become easy to understand and conduct. The communication style, culture, decision making etc so that negotiations between countries may be successful. Many cultures are different across the world and they need to be understood before the actual deal takes place. For instance, the Chinese may want to develop business relations at a personal level like going out for dinner etc before signing off the negotiation deal. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), Americans on the other hand like to sign the negation deal as soon as possible. Thus, such cultural norms are essential to understand or else the negotiation may not go through. Thus Hofstede’s Individualism and collectivism can help understand such cultural differences in decision making for instance where the Americans are individualistic and like to often make decisions on their own. The Chinese on the other hand believe in collectivism and make decisions after consultation with the rest of the group. International management of employees belonging to different countries and cultures is essential to understand so that the management can handle such differences in the employees. Many firms train their employees to understand different cultures. However, such cultural differences are easily understood with the help of the framework. According to Piepenburg (2011), the uncertainty avoidance index enable one to understand the way a nation deals with their anxieties by lessening their uncertainties. A country may have lenient laws or stringent ones depending on the culture type. Similarly, when marketing different products in different markets, understanding the cultural values of the market is essential so that the product may be altered to meet the market needs as per the culture. If this is not done, the market may not be as receptive to the products. The global branding, strategies of advertising and the behavior of the consumers need to be understood. Hofstede’s model and studies enable marketer’s to do that. Masculinity for instance in Saudi Arabia is more prominent where the females have little say in decision making etc and it’s a trait which is embedded that is essential to know when entering the market with a new product. Thus Hofstede’s model is an essential tool to understand such cultural traditions. The main criticism of Hofstede’s theory is the methodology used for the research conducted. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), the study consisted of 116000 questionnaires from which 60,000 responses were received for the research belonging to 50 different countries. He worked from 1967 till 1978 on this research with IBM and analyzed 32 questions from 40 countries. The research represented a specific timeframe only when technological advances were not so as they are today. To implement the same research results to times to come may create misinterpretation of the data, inaccurate results and even biases. Moreover, another problem was the researcher’s background single dimensional and not with multiple disciplines which would have added more depth to the research results. Assumption 1-Average national culture equate with individual culture Hofstede made the assumption that the entire population of every country included in the research has similar characteristics. This assumption had no substantial background research and was based on this questionnaire research only. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), the subjects belonged to one company that is IBM, but he assumed that they represented their respective nationalities without evidence that backed this assumption. There are instances where he suggests that every individual subject belonging to a particular nation has the same cultural characteristics. Whereas in some instances he claims that in IBM there is an “average tendency” which also is a questionable assumption inferring that IBM’s results are the national responses. Hofstede’s second assumption – subjects were “mentally programmed” for three cultural characteristics Hofstede assumed that there exists only one culture in IBM irrespective of the country it exists in. he further assumed that there were only three cultural characteristics of importance and the rest were insignificant. These three characteristics were occupations; where the assumption is employees irrespective of their job type have the same culture if they have an occupation. The second is organizational which assumes that an organization irrespective of which country it is located in has the same culture globally. Third he assumes that national and work cultures are permanently embedded within the individual beforehand. These assumptions seem rather baseless as they are not back by proper research and if any of these assumptions is taken away from the research, then the whole research tumbles. According to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), Hofstede also could not distinguish the national cultures through his questions. His questions were not designed to do so. For instance he said that a nation could have either individualism or collectivism when in reality the society could have both depending on the situation that it faces. However, Hofsetede’s does not look into the coexistence of such characteristics. Moreover, individuals vary in character in different surroundings for instance someone may be individualistic where his family is concerned but be collectivist when working in a firm. Thus such variation within an individual or society was overlooked. Thus his theory demonstrates weaknesses with assumptions that have not been appropriately backed with proofs and research. Moreover, according to Seo, Philips Jang and Kin (2012, p. 916-927), he based his research making these assumptions as pillars. In addition, his research was conducted went the work and social environment was not so developed and when communication between countries was not so easy. Moreover, his research has not been updated but though some contest his theories many still make it a pivotal part of their research. Schwartz’s cultural theory Like Hofstede, Schwartz has also evolved a culture theory in an attempt to understand the cultures of different nations. Such a theory enables one to understand the culture of individuals and nations, which in turn helps in business deals and future business growth. However, Clevelanda, Erdogana, Arikan and Poyraz (2011, 934–943) add that to conduct business globally an in-depth understanding of the culture of another country is essential which also helps in understanding the individuals at another level. The circular model of culture helps in understanding the values of the individual, which were previously not differentiated by Hofstede. Thus one can infer that Schwartz’s theory is more on a micro level than macro. Schwartz focused on both individual level and cultural level with two different models, which in turn give a more in-depth view of the values along with the culture. Individual level benefits Schwartz in his individual model had ten values that are universally accepted which include power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, conformity, benevolence, security and tradition. Clevelanda, Erdogana, Arikan and Poyraz (2011, 934–943) explain that such a model involves an individual’s values and is one of the leading models in understanding the values of individuals belonging to cross cultures. Value clashes are often a cause of work environment unrest and thus with such an understanding a more amicable work environment may be achieved. The same can be used for business expansion in different countries and understanding human values at a different level. Moreover, when hiring new staff, such a model may help one understand how well an individual may fair especially if he belongs to another culture. Culture value benefits This model is more on a macro level and is used to understand nations’ characteristics. Intellectual autonomy. By this analysis, Schwartz’s theory helps in understanding the nature of the individual as well as the nation or a group belonging to a particular sect. For instance, the broadmindedness of an individual or curiosity level is dealt with here. With such an understanding, businesses may be conducted better and someone’s nature and cultural characteristic may not be taken as an offence. Moreover, Siew and Lee, Soutar, (2007, pp.164 – 180) explain that with such an understanding of individual nature, businesses may be conducted more smoothly and there will be less friction resulting in the business growth at a global scale. Other affective autonomy, mastery, hierarchy, embeddedness, harmony and egalitarianism are the remaining heads of the model. By affective autonomy Schwartz means values including things that enable one to derive pleasure at a cultural level, which may be, implemented both at an individual and national level. Mastery infers to how ambitions a nation may be and how daring it is to take risks, which is parallel to Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance index. Hierarchy refers to the authority and humbleness there is in a culture embedded with values. Piepenburg (2011) explains that this is close to Hofstede’s Masculinity. Embeddedness measures the values associated with a culture like respect for tradition etc. Harmony is the interaction one has with nature and how respectful the culture is towards nature. Lastly equalitarism is how much a society believes in social justice and maintaining harmony in society. Schwartz has included all the broad categories of cultural values in this model and thus it is able to make a closer analysis of the nation and culture. The cultural analysis is not based on geographical categories but on psychological categories and data. With his model it has now become easy to measure culture in terms of the values of an individual and nation, which was difficult to do earlier. Moreover, Siew and Lee, Soutar, (2007, pp.164 – 180) add that with this model, a systematic sampling can be conducted which in turn helps in better research methods and results. The theory has focused on individual and collective characteristics like that of Hofstede. Personal achievements and goals and happiness are essential are eminent for every individual and its understanding is essential for individual and national success. But how values intervene with culture and incorporate into personal objective and happiness is what the model enables one to understand which is of utmost importance. Cultural understanding holds value because it enables a better relationship at a business and personal level. It is accepted that every nation has a distinct culture. In addition that every organizational environment also has a distinct culture with its unique features that needs to be understood and respected before interaction with other cultures can be made. The weaknesses of the model. According to him, the individual values together make up the social values. This may not hold true and thus his theory is criticized by many researchers. If there is a change in social values how will this change influence an individual of the society and will it be measured with this framework. He has demonstrated the cross-cultural values on two levels. The first level is where the individual values are assessed and the other is where the cultural values are assessed. However, Siew and Lee, Soutar, (2007, pp.164 – 180) further explain that the different categories of the two maps are somewhat different and belong to different groupings. Exemplifying this with the help of the two maps, in the individual level, authority and being humble have negative correlation where as in the cultural level they have positive correlation. Thus as Hofstede says there is ecological fallacy. The researcher that wants to research on values at an individual level should use the former level and those wanting to research the culture at a societal level. However, values are complex and the actual viability of the theory is questionable. Moreover, some are of the opinion that the two levels are not very distinct and it would have been better if they were assessed together rather than used separately and individually. According to McSweeney (2002), the framework aims to measure personal moral values which may be difficult to do even with the framework as such values are susceptible to change and may vary with the environment one is exposed to. According to Siew and Lee, Soutar, (2007, pp.164 – 180), cultural values may also change for which the framework doesn’t have provision. Moreover, researchers argue that Schwartz was not able to distinguish the different categories of the two maps enough to consider them as separate maps. They overlap in many instances which Schwartz agrees to and thus accepts the flaws in his own theory. Using the two theories is not as practical if it had been combined to design one theory instead of mapping them differently. Its practical usage is limited because of this. Moreover, his model is not as closely related to economic indicators as that of Hofstede’s and thus its viability is slowly diminishing. Trompenaar according to Jun and Lee (2007, pp.474 – 491), conducted on 46000 managers from 40 countries Trmpenaar’s cultural dimension revealed an interesting facet of cultures. It maintains that people from different cultures are different. Not only one culture from another but also one individual from another. However, what he said was that this diffidence is quite predictable and has a set pattern of differentiation. This model is used to understand people coming from different culture. With such an understanding, misunderstandings can be avoided and better relations can be established both at a personal and professional level. The aim of this theory is to assess an individual’s culture on an everyday basis revealing more of his nature as it is inflicted by his culture and the environmental surroundings thus the head include firstly the universalism versus particularism. In this the framework assess as to what is more important for the individual- rules or the relationships that entail his everyday life-whether he would be willing to overlook the rules for the relations that he shares with his family or work colleagues. The second is the individual versus collectivism in which one can assess whether the individual is more comfortable working individually or as a group. This characteristic is important as by knowing this, the individual’s ability to work in a given work environment can be assessed. Neutral versus emotional reveals how emotional or non-emotional an individual is which is important in understanding one ability to sustain or build relationships. Too emotional a person can become closer to everyone while someone that doesn’t show emotions may appear to be rude and cold. According to McSweeney (2002), specific versus diffuse is where one is assessed regarding his relationships. It shoes how an individual handles his relations and whether it is a preset way of handling or is he flexible to change himself with the changing environment. Achievement versus ascription is where the framework reveals ones belief whether status so something that is given or does one have to prove oneself to get to that status. Jun and Lee (2007, pp.474 – 491) add that sequential versus synchronic is where the individual is tested on his ability to work at one thing at a time or doing several things at a time. This is very interesting, as one can know if the individual has the ability to multitask or not. Lastly, internal versus external control is where one is assessed about his belief whether he believes that he controls the enlivenment or whether the environment controls us. Thus, such information about personal nature of the individual. Such knowledge can greatly assist in understanding an individual or a nation as it reveals a lot about his mindset and the cultural background that he belongs to along with the way he likes to operate in a business and personal environment. Knowing such detail about an individual can greatly help in understanding the individual and thus it can avoid misunderstandings and issues that may be related to culture. The utility of such a framework is more for a marketing purpose where it may be used for the segmentation of markets and consumers. This is because it studies the nature of individuals in the light of cultural attributes, which in turn helps in understanding the markets in which the consumers exist. Moreover the cultural differences that exist in different countries may also be understood wit the help of such a framework and therefore its utility may be limited. Trompenaar and Hampden have a cultural model, which states five principle values. Some of these values are similar to the Hofstede model. Their collectivism/ individualism and power distance is very close to that of Hofstede however, it does not cover many aspects like Hofstede’s model does. For instance, Hofstede covers status accord and power distance within a society but Thompenaar’s model doesn’t. The main issue with his model was that he did not select these cultural categories that he has included in his model with the help of statistical data. This was important because statistical data would give credibility to his framework and thus make it more reliable. Since the heads are not selected with the help of statistical data but instead they have been selected by himself and the selection criteria was primarily what he chose to have in the framework. Thus there lacks credibility in the very essence of the framework. Moreover, Jun and Lee (2007, pp.474 – 491) add that the collection of information is mainly theoretical and lacks scientific backing, which takes away the credibility from the framework. Thus even though it sounds like a very in-depth and promising framework it lacks valid data to back it up and also lacks the strength and thus its applicability is minimum. However, according to McSweeney (2002), it is a more detailed and in-depth framework that reveals the personality of an individual but apparently the analysis of the data collected seem to be very crucial and scientific precision may be needed for the analytical work. Moreover, with such analysis biases may creep in shaking the very basis of the result on which it is based on. Thus scientists may go through the hassle of conducting a research but the very basis of the framework remains questionable and thus their efforts would not be productive and reliable. Application to human resource To select between the three frameworks that is between Hofstede, Schwartz’s model and that of Trompenaar’s model, in the human resource research I feel that the Hofstede’s model is more viable than the rest of the two. This is because Hofstede’s model covers all the aspects that need to be covered where human resource is concerned. This is essential because Hofstede covers most aspects of both of the other frameworks combined. However, the other two may also be used in conjunction with Hofstede. For instance one can use Swartz when trying to understand an individual’s values or Thompenaar’s when trying to analyse how a cultural attribute has been affected by the given environment. But besides Hofstede, the other two do not fulfil the needs of the human resource research. Hofstde himself have made certain assumptions, which are baseless, and he has based his whole research on them, however, they can be overlooked for the benefit of the holistic value of the framework. However, it is more important when human resource research is a comparison of two different cultures of perhaps two different countries. This is so because it gives a more macro overall picture of the cultural understanding and understanding cross cultures. In today’s environment, where businesses are becoming global the most viable framework is that of Hofstede’s because he enables one to understand the international communication and how the two cultures will communicate with one another and what issues may arise between them. It also helps us understand the negotiation level and depth that may occur between two countries. This is also very crucial as business deals gravely depend upon how well the other’s culture is understood and accommodated. It also helps one to understand the tactics involved in international management especially regional management and coordinating it with local management. According to McSweeney (2002), this may be very difficult with an understanding of cultures. Lastly it also enables us to segment the market and understand the different market segment with a closer look at the consumer segments. Thus Hofstede’s model gives a more holistic overview and is capable of assessing individuals as well as cultures. Where Schwartz’s cultural values is concerned, it is complicated as it has two maps-one is for individual assessment and the other is to assess cultural values on a collective platform. This will not only add to the costs of the researcher but will also involve a lot of hassle and time. Moreover, the very basis of the framework is questionable and that cultural changes are not accommodated within the framework. Moreover, many of the features of the individual and cultural values repeat and thus it becomes confusing. Moreover, the framework may be useful to understand individuals rather than cultures as a whole. In addition not many have used this framework when compared to Hofstede’s framework, which only adds to the credibility of the latter. Moreover, Swartz’s framework is criticised by many researchers and they are of the opinion that it should have been combined rather than have two different parts. Moreover, one has to conduct both and not get away with just one of the maps. Thus it may not be a practical solution for the human resource department. Thompenaar’s framework again is more useful where market segmentation is concerned as it gives a more in-depth assessment of individual nature and not of the culture collectively. Moreover, it has many aspects of the Hofstede’s model also but is not at such a macro level as Hofstede is. According to McSweeney (2002), his model is more useful when understanding an individual on a personal level or when a small group is understood. Moreover, Thompenaar assumes that all cultures are different and that every individual is different however, every individual differs from another on a predictable pattern, which may not be true. Every individual is complicated and thus to say that every individual differs in a similar pattern may not be true. His whole research is based on this. Adding to it, his data is not backed by statistical evidence, which makes one doubt the essence of the research. Moreover, his research is apt more for marketing as it helps in the understanding of individual nature and values and the way one reacts in a given situation etc rather than the cultural understanding and thus Hofstede is apparently a better option amongst the three frameworks mentioned. (4435) References Seo, S. Philips, W. Jang, J and Kin, K. (2012). The effects of acculturation and uncertainty avoidance on foreign resident choice for Korean foods. International journal of hospitality management. Vol. 31.2012, 3, p. 916-927 Lu CS, Lai KH, Lun YH, Cheng TC. (2012). Effects of national culture on human failures in container shipping: The moderating role of Confucian dynamism. Accid Anal. Vol. 31.p. 916-927. Jun, J. Lee, H. (2007). Cultural differences in brand designs and tagline appeals. International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 Iss: 4, pp.474 - 491 Clevelanda, M. Erdogana, S. Arikan, G and Poyraz, T. (2011). Cosmopolitanism, individual-level values and cultural-level values: Across-cultural study. Journal of Business Research. Volume 64, Issue 9, Pages 934–943 Siew Imm Ng, Julie Anne Lee, Geoffrey N. Soutar, (2007) "Are Hofstedes and Schwartzs value frameworks congruent?", International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 Iss: 2, pp.164 – 180 Smith, P. Peterson, M. Schwartz, S. (2002). Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and their Relevance to Managerial Behavior A 47-Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology . vol. 33 no. 2 188-208 Piepenburg, K. (2011). Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions. GRIN Publishing GmbH. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1):89– 118. Read More