The Cultural Difference of Geert Hofstede's Model and Fons Trompenaars Model - Coursework Example

Business Table of Contents Introduction 3 Hofstede’s Theory 3 Trompenaars Theory 4 Cultural and workplace difference between Netherlands and Singapore using the theories 4 Hofstede’s cultural difference 4 Trompenaars Theory 7 Conclusion 7 Reference List 8 Introduction Globalization has provided opportunity to organizations in order to expand their business internationally. This has helped organizations to share resources and become more effective. Different economies can interact with each other, creating wider opportunity for growth. International expansion brings several advantages to the expanding organization along with considerable challenges. In such a situation, the expanding organization needs to communicate properly through events and classes, which will help in understanding cultural difference between the two organizations. Hence, cross-cultural management has become a significant issue in all multinational corporations operating worldwide. International expansion does not only bring operational benefit to an organization, but also provides monetary benefits, which encourage organizations to make further expansionary moves. Consequently, multinational organizations have concentrated on sending managers to international countries for extending their scope of business. The following advice report highlights cultural difference existing between companies of Netherlands and Singapore. The report is prepared in order to advice a company operating in Netherlands who is interested in negotiating with a new subsidiary in Singapore. The company has planned to send Dutch staff to Singapore for settling the acquisition and interpret workplace conditions therein. There is considerable cultural difference between the two countries; Singapore and Netherlands. As a result, the report will act as a guide for staff and management of the company in Singapore so as to understand the cultural difference. The cultural difference is explained with the help of Geert Hofsted’s model and Fons Trompenaars Model. The report is prepared by depicting facts related to cultural and workplace differences between Netherlands and Singapore (Chevrier, 2003). Hofstede’s Theory Geert Hofstede had studied the cultural difference in 1970s through a survey designed to classify cultural dimensions among national groups of employees in IBM. He had found that there are five dimensions, which became prominent in the study and subsequently, depicted the theory pertaining to survey results. The dimensions are individualism versus collectivism, power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, pragmatism and indulgence. All these dimensions can be explained with respect to culture of each country, thereby enabling organisations to comprehend and manage cultural difference (Lieshout, 2006). Trompenaars Theory Instead of concentrating on one organization, Fon Trompenaars had carried out a survey among 30,000 people in more than forty countries. He had then created 7 dimensions of culture, explaining them as universalism versus particularism, individualism versus communitarianism, specificity versus diffusion, affective versus neutral, achieved versus ascribed status, internal versus external control and sequential time versus synchronous time (Luo, 2002). Cultural and workplace difference between Netherlands and Singapore using the theories Both the theories are used in elaborating cultural difference between Netherlands and Singapore. It also depicts the workplace culture difference, which Dutch staff can encounter in Singapore. The following section elaborates on ways of negotiation that can be adopted by the company from Netherlands with that in Singapore. It highlights facts regarding ways in which Dutch staff will adapt to the work culture of Singapore as well as manage employees of the company in Singapore. Hofstede’s cultural difference The following figure elaborates on Hofstede’s theory pertaining to cultural difference between Netherlands and Singapore: Figure 1: Hofstede Framework: Netherlands and Singapore (Source: The Hofstede Centre, 2014a) From the above figure, the following can be deduced: 1) Power Distance: This dimension foregrounds facts regarding individuals in a society and indicates that all are equal. It aims at portraying cultural attitude towards inequalities prevailing among individuals in the society. Contrasting scores are found on comparing the power distance among individuals in Netherlands and Singapore. Singapore is a multi-ethnic society with majority Chinese residents and rest are Indian and expatriates. Singapore scores high in this dimension and associated individuals have synergetic approach to their religion, which is highly dominant in Singapore. They believe in unequal relationship between individuals and follow their own principles. However, Netherlands scores lower in this dimension, which proves that they believe in equality. The Dutch believes in equal rights and higher accessibility of superiors. In Singapore, power is centralized and the managers highly rely on instructions from their leader or authority. The employees are directed about their work and are controlled by managers formally. However, in Netherlands, power is decentralized and managers take the opinion of their team members and associate with them informally (The Hofstede Centre, 2014b). Thus, the Dutch staff from Netherlands will encounter challenges due to this power distance. They can either mix with employees from the company in Singapore informally or communicate with them through the management (Lieshout, 2006). 2) Individualism: This dimension indicates ways that an individual aims to adopt in order to assert their self-image, referring with “I” or “we”. Singapore is a collectivist society i.e. ‘we’ is important where individuals look after each other in exchange of loyalty. The communication with employees and managers are indirect and harmony is maintained among them. Any conflict is avoided and politeness is necessary throughout the conversation. There is always a priority for fulfilment of the goals. Netherlands is an individualistic society. The individuals in the society prefer to take care of themselves and their parents. The employer-employee relationship is contract based for mutual advantage. The hiring and promotion process is totally dependent on merit. The Dutch staff in Singapore will not encounter issues in this aspect as Asians believe in informal way of recruitment and promotion (Thorne and Saunders, 2002; Krishna, Sahay and Walsham, 2004). 3) Masculinity: This dimension aims at evaluating whether or not masculine or feminine factor is given importance in a society. Masculine society highlights one which is driven by competition, where success is the main goal. Even so, feminine society refers to one that is driven by values, care for other and quality of life. Singapore is in middle of the scale and is more on the feminine side (Chevrier, 2003). This reflects that the society has softer aspects of culture, where sympathy for underdogs are developed and encouraged by the individuals. They are modest and humble and generally avoid conflicts in private work life. Netherlands is entirely a feminine society. The managers are supportive towards the employees, but it is very important to balance personal and work life. The managers take all decisions after consulting with the employees. The conflicts within workplace are resolved by compromising and negotiation. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Dutch staff will be successful in negotiating with management of the company in Singapore concerning the acquisition, given that they are efficient at reaching any decision with patience (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003; Silverthorne, 2005). 4) Uncertainty avoidance: This dimension pertains to ways in which society can cope up with any uncertain situations in future. Singapore scores low in this dimension as they abide by a number of rules and regulations and this implies that Singapore is a fine country where for every incident, monetary penalties are charged. Nonetheless, it is observed that Netherlands scores high in this dimension. It prefers to avoid uncertain situations and has maintained rigid codes related to belief and behaviour. There is emotional need for rules and punctuality falls within the norms. Innovation is resisted and security is an important issue. As a consequence, the Dutch staff will encounter problem in Singapore, considering that employees of the company therein do not resist to uncertain situations. They will have to motivate the employees to change their view regarding uncertain situations. 5) Pragmatism: This dimension identifies ways in which people relay a certain incident that have happened in past or will occur in future. In a pragmatic society, individuals greatly depend upon a particular situation. Singapore is a pragmatic society, where individuals rely upon such situations and believe that a fruitful outcome is inevitable. They have achieved huge economic success by following this pragmatic approach. Netherlands has a pragmatic nature with moderate score for this dimension. Similar to the scenario in Singapore, individuals in Netherlands also believe that truth is dependent on situations. Hence, Dutch staff will not encounter any problem while communicating with employees from Singapore as both of them have the same pragmatic approach (McSweeney, 2002). 6) Indulgence: This dimension indicates the extent to which people control their desire. The individuals in Singapore have moderate control over their needs and desires. However, the culture of Netherlands can be described as indulgence. The individuals concentrate upon desires and impulses and want to enjoy life to its fullest. The Dutch staff will not face any problem in this aspect as expression of desire varies from one person to another. In workplace, employees and managers are not expected to be casual about their desires. Trompenaars Theory The Trompenaars Theory is an extended and more detailed version of Hofstede Theory. While explaining the cultural difference between Netherlands and Singapore, both theories put emphasis on the main six dimensions. Trompenaars have presented the same dimensions in a detailed manner so as to facilitate better explanation and representation. Even so, the outcome of applying Trompenaars Theory is same as that of Hofstede Theory, in case of Singapore and Netherlands (Luo, 2002). Conclusion From the discussion above, it can be concluded that cultural difference between Singapore and Netherlands is not so wide that it cannot be bridged. The Dutch staff will not encounter any huge challenge in communicating and dealing with Singapore employees. The negotiation will be successful as both organisations have more or less the same cultural dimensions. Reference List Chevrier, D., 2003. Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. Journal of World Business 38, pp. 141-149. Krishna, S., Sahay, S. and Walsham, G., 2004. Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing. Communications of the ACM, 47, pp. 62-66. Lieshout, S., 2006. Effective Multi- Cultural Project Management: Bridging The Gap Between National Cultures And Conflict Management Styles. [pdf] University of Gavle. Available at: [Accessed 11 June 2014]. Luo, Y., 2002. Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of management, 28, pp. 669-694. McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstede’s Model Of National Cultural Differences And Their Consequences: A Triumph Of Faith – A Failure Of Analysis. [pdf] Sage Publications. Available at: [Accessed 11 June 2014]. Schaffer, B. and Riordan, C., 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6, pp. 169-215. Silverthorne, C., 2005. Organizational psychology in cross cultural perspective. New York: NYU Press. The Hofstede Centre, 2014a. Singapore. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 June 2014]. The Hofstede Centre, 2014b. Netherlands. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 June 2014]. Thorne, L. and Saunders, S., 2002. The socio-cultural embededness of individuals ethical reasoning in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, pp. 1-14. Read More