A Critical Evaluation of the Contribution of Hofstede on Global Organisational Practices - Essay Example

A critical evaluation of the contribution of Hofstede on global organisational practices BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Introduction Geert Hofstede, a respected cultural theorist, developed his Cultural Dimensions framework which describes the unique aspects of many different cultures around the world that drive human behaviours, social practices and norms. Culture pertains to the shared beliefs, values and norms that serve as predictors to how people will behave and think in a social and organisational context. Culture consists of the different symbols and meanings that serve as the foundation for a set of shared social rules that regulate mental or emotional factors related to membership within a social group (Kunda 1992). Culture is often a fundamental foundation for what drives organisational practices from one organisation to the next. Over a period of time, organisations begin to construct certain procedural practices and behavioural norms that are associated with cultural characteristics of organisational members in order to build internal cohesion and unity and drive more willingness to comply with established guidelines and regulations. James and Connolly (2009) assert that when inherent cultural characteristics of organisational members are effectively aligned with policies and procedures, it enhances in-group membership and more social cohesion. Hence, having defined culture and the notion that organisational practices differ depending on cultural dynamics of organisational members, should it be accepted that Hofstede’s theories were correct and should serve as the relevant framework guiding organisational practices? This essay explores Hofstede’s theories on culture and different organisational practices in multiple cultures to determine whether this theorist’s concepts should be considered viable in today’s organisations. An evaluation of Hofstede’s theories of culture Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions framework explores multiple characteristics of different cultures that impact behaviour, attitude, and social dynamics of unique cultures. This theory explores the phenomenon of power distance, masculinity versus femininity, long-term orientation versus short-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance, as well as collectivism versus individualism (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010). To effectively determine the relevancy of each cultural concept on Hofstede’s framework, these dimensions must be examined individually and applied to real-world organisational practices and the success or failure rate of different organisational approaches. The concept of power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance will be the theoretical dimensions explored in detail. Organisational practices and culture can be explored using Poland as the relative example. Geert Hofstede asserts that Polish culture is hierarchical in nature, with considerable power distance in an unequal society whereby less powerful organisational members anticipate and accept disparities in the distribution of authority (Hofstede Centre 2014). High power distance as a Polish cultural dimension was also supported by Nasierowski and Mikula (1998) who, in an empirical study, recruited young Polish businesspersons and discovered that power distance was a dominant characteristic of this culture. Hence, in a culture where power distance is common and tolerated, a more autocratic and centralised organisational structure would theoretically be the most viable as an organisational dynamic with limited shared decision-making as the organisational norm. However, would an autocratic structure supportive of distance between managers and employees, in Poland, be successful? Robert, et al. (2000) would tend to disagree. Data achieved from this empirical study found that in Poland, employee empowerment was positively associated with job satisfaction in a Polish business (Robert, et al.). Hence, this study would support that organisational practices supportive of power distance ideologies could potentially create turnover problems or general job role dissatisfaction. The aforementioned assertion is also supported by an empirical study that utilised focus group and questionnaire instruments of a recruited Polish sample aiming to measure power distance cultural aspects of Polish organisations. Todeva (1999) recruited 38 Polish university students between the ages of 18 and 25 and discovered that internal organisational norms and practices that support power distance conflicted with participant attitudes about such practices’ relevancy. Whilst 54 percent of the recruited sample asserted that power distance was the internalised norm driving organisational practices, only 21 percent indicated that this was a relevant and viable ideology (Todeva). During the focus group discussion in the study, students were consistent in iterating that Polish societal norms are strongly driven by long-standing influences of the Catholic Church and the Communist manifesto which have established a bureaucratic machine that drives hierarchical organisational norms (Todeva, p.619). The sample in this study asserted that social changes were occurring in Poland that were fuelling more equal distribution of power and social differentiation which were compromising values and beliefs about the viability of power distance in this society. Responses from the sample indicated that this younger generation of participants were readily willing to confront their supervisory figures (Todeva). When assessing the relevancy of Hofstede’s theories, it would appear that the contribution of power distance as it pertains to Polish organisational practices is not necessarily applicable as a best practice norm. Hofstede’s model, which is now decades old, does not appear to take into consideration that social evolutions occurring as a result of generational differences might conflict using his Cultural Dimensions framework to guide organisational policy and practices. Whilst the established norm in Polish society and business was tolerance of hierarchical and bureaucratic systems, younger individuals exposed to sweeping social changes might no longer adhere to these norms as supported by Todeva (1999). Therefore, for example, organisational practices such as using the hard approach to HRM, which consists of less emphasis on empowerment, autonomy and shared decision-making (Armstrong 2007) might very well drive dissatisfaction or even conflict between management and employees in contemporary organisations. The situation of Polish cultural evolutions and disparities about the relevancy of power distance-supporting organisational practices would seem to criticise the viability of Hofstede’s model for guiding Polish business practices against the Cultural Dimensions theory. To further examine and critically evaluate the relevancy of Hofstede’s theories, organisational practices in China can be considered. In this instance, the concept of collectivism will be explored. Research indicates that the Chinese culture is highly collectivist, whereby members of Chinese society maintain strong loyalties toward groups and are deemed we-conscious (Cheung, et al. 2008). In this culture, there is much more commitment to the people in the organisation as opposed to the organisation itself (Hofstede Centre 2014). Furthermore, in the Chinese culture, Hofstede indicates that loss of face (reputation) in front of others is a serious offence in Chinese collectivist culture, which is supported by Yuan (2009) where loss of face is a major condemnation of society. Therefore, it would theoretically be a viable organisational practice to ensure opportunities for teamwork and group collaborations whilst also ensuring that employees are not publicly criticise or censured in front of important reference group figures. It is also uncommon for Chinese organisational members to admit they do not understand or that they are incorrect (Yuan). In one study, a Chinese staff member of an organisation continued to agree and respond with “yes, yes” when it was later identified that this individual did not “have a clue” about what was being discussed (Yuan, p.197). Elsey and Leung (2004) conducted a case study research project of Chinese organisations and found one situation in which quality circles were being developed as a means of identifying quality issues and finding solutions for greater quality of outputs and processes. The concept of the quality circle is providing a forum by which organisational experts with similar talents and skills meet regularly to assess and solve problems in the workplace (Tang, Tollison and Whiteside 1996). Quality circles as either informal or formal groups would seem, based on Chinese preferences, to be a viable model for quality improvement as it fosters socialisation and collaboration with important organisational reference groups members in a collectivist culture. However, Elsey and Leung (2004) found that organisations using the quality circle model were highly resisted by Chinese employees and managers. The general resistance was caused by the perception that criticisms, which are common in quality circles, were threatening and suggested managerial and worker incompetency. Wei, et al. (2010) iterate that Chinese employees must perceive a sense of social belonging in the organisation which will determine the extent to which employees intend to leave the organisation. Hofstede supports this, suggesting that Chinese employees manifest cooperative behaviours when they perceive in-group membership, whilst exhibiting uncooperative behaviours in an out-group context (Hofstede Centre 2014). Hence, it appears that Hofstede is both correct and incorrect that organisational practices which support teamwork, as well as social and professional collaborations, would be viable and relevant practices in Chinese businesses. However, the extent to which feedback about individual performance is publicised could create turnover problems or build a culture of resistance toward change if criticisms and critiques are part of these team-based internal models. Whilst Hofstede does not recommend specific models that would be relevant to the collectivist values of Chinese employees, it does appear that certain aspects of the Cultural Dimensions framework (in this case loss of face) could build a foundation for collaboration-based organisational practices and models. Uncertainty avoidance as part of Hofstede’s theory deals with the extent to which risk and ambiguity are tolerated within a society (Hofstede, et al. 2010). As it relates to this dynamic, Japanese organisations will be explored as the relevant case study of comparison to critically examine uncertainty avoidance and Hofstede’s theoretical relevancy. Sony, as one example, is considered to be a slow-to-change, hierarchical culture whereby decision-making occurs top-down in a centralised structure with strong bureaucratic structures (Kageyama 2013; McDonald 2013). This is common in Japanese companies (Hofstede Centre 2014). Japanese firms that do not promote shared decision-making have centralised decision-making structures whereby companies invest considerable labour and financial investment into the production of feasibility reports and rely strongly on quantitative metrics and data before making even small-scale decisions and promoting internal organisational change (Hofstede Centre 2014). Risk is avoided at all costs at Japanese companies. Decision-making, therefore, is considered to be meticulously slow which inhibits innovation and making necessary changes to the business model needed to respond to evolving market conditions. In fact, in governance boards, there is much emphasis in Japanese governance teams to achieve 100 percent consensus before making critical strategic decisions (Crossland and Hambrick 2007). Therefore, as indicated by Hofstede, Japanese organisations should work toward minimising ambiguity and riskiness in order to appeal to Japanese values and norms, thereby theoretically motivating better internal cohesion and performance. In Japanese countries, a well-developed Total Quality Management ideology is commonplace to ensure productivity and superior quality of processes and outputs. Managers are trained on such practices as statistical process control to remove quality risks from the business model and establish clear and concise processes to maximise quality outputs. Employees are then instructed to comply with procedural and process-related changes identified through quantitative analyses with limited discussion to address employee concerns about the change. Strict compliance measurements are established to remove ambiguity and ensure employees understand all dynamics of the expected compliance (Oakland 2014). However, Oakland (2014) describes a case study of two Japanese firms that implemented a Total Quality Management system and received substantial employee resistance. One manufacturing firm identified created detailed job description changes as well as process metrics and models that would remove a variety of statistical variations that were impeding quality outputs and revenue growth. The turnover rate of this organisation increased dramatically and exit interviews conducted identified that TQM and its stringent compliance frameworks limited autonomy and opportunities for sharing decision-making which caused conflict and general employee de-motivation (Oakland). Employees felt that they were being given strict communications about why new TQM-related changes were required and too many harsh justifications regarding compliance expectations that were angering employees who desired more consultation between managers and support workers (Oakland). Hence, it might only be that managers at Japanese firms have beliefs and norms related to high uncertainty avoidance. In the case studies of Japanese companies with a TQM structure, the employees would not tolerate simple command-and-control demands from management, leaving an environment of total compliance (and punishment for non-compliance) that caused considerable problems with employee adherence, attitude and job role performance. Whilst management believed that it was avoiding risk and removing statistical uncertainties from plaguing total organisational performance and quality achievement, illustrating a high uncertainty avoidance, employees would not tolerate this management ideology and had intentions to leave the firm. Therefore, in the dynamic of uncertainty avoidance, it would seem, again, that Hofstede is both correct and incorrect about how to structure organisational practices in the Japanese organisation. At the managerial level, it is clear that Japanese firms that achieve successes and higher levels of organisational performance achieve this through governance-level compliance and management-level decision-making that seeks to remove all risks and uncertainty that could impact the business model. Feasibility studies and quantitative metrics underpin this painstakingly-slow decision-making hierarchy, however many Japanese firms are highly successful in the global arena as a result of this cultural characteristic of uncertainty avoidance. However, where Hofstede appears to be wrong in his theory is that employees are demanding more involvement and participation with decision-making and will clearly resist strict regulations and compliance expectations when these decisions are made against quantitative analyses with no opportunity to offer their opinion or grievances about new compliance guidelines. TQM implementation was nearly a complete failure when Japanese managers utilised every strategy to remove procedural and process-related ambiguities and restructured job descriptions in order to ensure that Japanese employees were adhering to every statistically-supported new guideline for performance. Conclusion Having examined the phenomenon of power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance, using three different nations, it would appear that Hofstede’s contributions to the development of different organisational practices are generally still debatable. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions model seems to view culture as a static phenomenon without regarding the inevitability of change, which was illustrated in the Polish organisation case study where generational differences began to conflict with established cultural norms driven by Catholicism and Communism that made hierarchical structures the most relevant historically. Hofstede would likely have said that Polish employees regularly embrace power distance and have become accustomed to it, however an empirical study identified that this is not the case and employees would be willing to challenge their superiors. Hofstede also appears to miss the proverbial mark as it pertains to uncertainty avoidance, at least in Japan, as it was only managers in the provided case study that were focused on removing risk and ambiguities along the business model. The employees, however, were so highly resistant to the implementation of Total Quality Management founded on incredible scientific metrics and felt autonomy and opportunity were limited as a result of this rigidity. Hofstede might argue that Japanese employees are tolerant of this type of focus in a risk-averse business and would be more willing to comply with hierarchical obligations. Clearly, this was not the case as it pertained to two different Japanese companies. Hence, based on all research findings, it should be concluded that Hofstede’s theoretical contributions for structuring organisational practices in different cultures needs re-examination. This essay’s research found that social evolutions in a culture as well as management ideology versus employee ideology can significantly reduce the validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions theory. It may be that Japanese managers work diligently to achieve a position of authority and therefore comply with established corporate norms related to uncertainty avoidance in order to gain a positive reputation with senior executives. Though this is a subjective assertion, why management as opposed to employees seemed to have a focus and value-set related to removing ambiguities from the organisational model is unclear. It could be a product of Western influence on employee HR programs in Japanese organisations that make employees resist risk-aversion and statistical control methodologies in favour of more liberal and autonomy-promoting programs. Whatever the genuine foundation, Hofstede’s model does not see to take into consideration that management and employees might have a radically different viewpoint about the viability of uncertainty-avoiding measures, such as TQM, strict compliance, and statistical control processes. However, Hofstede was correct that collectivist cultures have group loyalty and want to save face in a group context, thus this seems to be the only solid aspect of his model that could underpin the development of certain organisational practices for a collectivist culture. Overall, however, in critical fashion, Hofstede, and his organisational supporters, might wish to consider that these models are not without opportunity for variation and examine whether contemporary cultural evolutions in a respective organisation might conflict using the Cultural Dimensions model as a relevant framework for organisational practices development. References Armstrong, M. (2007). Armstrong’s handbook of strategic human resource management, 5th edn. London: Kogan Page. Cheung, F., Cheung, S., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. and Yeh, K. (2008). Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp.81-108. Crossland, C. and Hambrick, D. (2007). How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: a study of CEO effects in three countries, Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp.767-789. Elsey, B. and Leung, J.S. (2004). Changing the work behaviour of Chinese employees using organisational learning, The Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(3), pp.167-178. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill. Hofstede Centre. (2014). What about China? [online] Available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html (accessed 7 December 2014). Hofstede Centre. (2014). What about Japan? [online] Available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/japan.html (accessed 6 December 2014). Hofstede Centre. (2014). What about Poland? [online] Available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/poland.html (accessed 9 December 2014). James, C. and Connolly, M. (2009). An analysis of the relationship between the organizational culture and the performance of staff work groups in schools and the development of an explanatory model, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(4), pp.389-407. Kageyama, Y. (2013). Kazuo Hirai, Sony CEO, says company is on track for a comeback, Huffington Post. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/sony-ceo-company-comeback-says-ceo_n_2492734.html (accessed 9 December 2014). Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McDonald, D. (2013). Can Sony be saved? Bad decisions stifle onetime innovator, New York Observer. [online] Available at: http://observer.com/2013/06/can-sony-be-saved-bad-decisions-stifle-one-time-innovator/ (accessed 10 December 2014). Nasierowski, W. and Mikula, B. (1998). Culture dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstede’s indices, Organization Studies, 19(3), pp.495-509. Oakland, John S. (2014). Total Quality Management and Operational Excellence. New York: Routledge. Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland and India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), pp.643-657. Tang, T., Tollison, P. and Whiteside, H. (1996). The case of active and inactive quality circles, Journal of Social Psychology, 136, pp.57-66. Todeva, E. (1999). Models for comparative analysis of culture: The case of Poland, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(4), pp.606-623. Wei, X., Liu, H., Wang, N. and Hai, L. (2010). Chinese employee’s turnover intentions in relationship to organisational identification, work values in modern service sector, 6th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, pp.1-5. Yuan, W. (2009). Effectiveness of communication between American and Chinese employees in multinational organisations in China, Intercultural Communication Studies, 18(1), pp.188-204. Read More